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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it. It implies a read operation but never states it is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, whether results are cached or paginated, or what triggers recomputation. The only behavioral hint is the '(window e.g. 7d, 30d)' parenthetical.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the window format as a parenthetical aside. Nothing is wasted and the parenthetical earns its place by documenting the undocumented param.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, the definition is thin for an analytics endpoint: it never describes what analytics are returned (counts, trends, groupings), how they are aggregated over the window, or the empty-result case. An agent can call it but cannot anticipate the response.

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 must compensate for both params. It adds genuine meaning for 'window' by showing accepted values ('7d', '30d'), but gives no meaning for the required 'agent_id' beyond the name, and doesn't state the default window or granularity.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('sourced-leads analytics') scoped to an agent, which is more concrete than the tool name alone. However, 'analytics' is left undefined, so the agent still doesn't know what metrics or shape of data comes back. No sibling is close enough to require explicit differentiation, so no penalty there.

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?

The description gives an example input format for the window but never says when to reach for this tool versus the scan-oriented siblings (list_scan_results, get_scan). There is no when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives.

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