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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context by gating contact details and call recordings behind include_contact and stating the date default, though it does not discuss pagination or limits.

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 substantive content is front-loaded and efficient, covering output scope and key invocation constraints in two sentences. The trailing 'Tools revision' line adds no value and slightly dilutes conciseness.

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 and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values in depth. Still, the lack of explanation for several non-obvious parameters such as detail and render leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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% for seven parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains include_contact and date formatting/defaults, and implies lead_type through 'counts by type,' but leaves detail, render, and customer_id semantics undocumented.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List Local Services Ads leads,' and enumerates the returned lead data. It is clearly distinct from most siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from lsa_rate_lead.

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?

Gives useful invocation context: contact details and call recordings require include_contact, and omitting dates defaults to 30 days. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus lsa_rate_lead or other lead-related siblings.

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