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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the closing "Read-only." adds nothing. The description does add genuinely new behavioral context: a default 30-day window when dates are omitted, and the fact that contact details and call recordings are gated behind include_contact. It does not mention pagination or result caps, which is a modest gap.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the contact-gating caveat, then date defaults. Nearly every clause earns its place. The trailing "Tools revision: d80f65c0." is bookkeeping noise that does not help an agent decide or call.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to explain return values, and the date/contact behavior is covered. For a 7-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, though, silent parameters like detail and render leave an agent guessing at a decision that materially changes the response size and format.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the date format and the omit-both default, and clarifies the effect of include_contact, which is real added meaning. However, the most consequential enum, detail (summary vs full), is never explained, nor is render (json/markdown/both); lead_type's enum values are self-explanatory.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("List Local Services Ads leads") and enumerates the content returned: counts by type/status/charge/credit/rating, newest leads with conversation counts, and licence/insurance verification. That is far more specific than the title alone. It stops short of naming any sibling (e.g. lsa_rate_lead, performance_report) to contrast with, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

It gives conditional guidance for two parameters: omit both dates for a 30-day window, and use include_contact only when contact details or recordings are needed. It offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as lsa_rate_lead or performance_report, and no guidance on when to pick detail=full over summary.

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