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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the description's real contribution is the privacy model: seeker name and email are masked until the partner accepts the hunt, and phone numbers are never returned. That is exactly the kind of behavioral detail that prevents an agent from promising contact data that will not appear; only the absence of result-count or window details keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each one carries distinct information: scope, name/email masking, phone omission. No filler.

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?

Privacy behavior is well covered and no output schema exists to explain, but three of four parameters are undocumented and the return shape (ordering, volume, what a 'hunt' record contains) is never described. Adequate on behavior, thin on mechanics.

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 coverage is only 25% (only 'since' is documented, including the 24-hour default), leaving locality, listing_id, and property_type with no meaning anywhere. The description adds nothing about filtering or parameter interaction, so the gaps remain unfilled.

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 (lists) and resource (recent hunts) plus the scoping constraint that they match this partner's homes, which separates it from broad search tools like search_rentals. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the partner-scoped 'leads' framing is distinct enough for an agent to recognize.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as search_rentals or save_hunt_alert, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer from the name 'my_leads' that this is the partner-facing inbox view.

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