Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only that full rows are returned and the scope is the current conversation, without explaining 'kept,' limit behavior, fallback auth, or how durable state works.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and easy to scan, though its brevity contributes to the ambiguity noted elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with six optional parameters, durable conversation state, and multiple sibling list tools, the description is too sparse. It leaves key concepts such as 'kept' leads and the relationship to list_crm_leads unexplained, though the schema covers most parameters and no output schema exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the parameter documentation largely carries the burden; the description adds no parameter-level meaning. A baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema itself explains uid, bearer_token, conversation_id, preferences_mode, and agent_preferences.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a verb ('Return') and resource ('full kept lead rows'), but 'kept' is undefined and the scope 'this MCP conversation' is vague. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling list_crm_leads or clarify what kind of leads are returned.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of list_crm_leads, list_applications, or other lead-related siblings. The only contextual clue is 'this MCP conversation,' which does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.