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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the description rightly spends its words elsewhere: ordering, pagination behavior, required scopes ('demos:read, leads:read'), and a personal-data handling constraint. It stops short of describing return shape details or empty-result behavior, but the added context is well beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the entity definition, then filtering, then pagination, then the privacy constraint and scopes — a logical order with no filler. The field enumeration in the opening sentence is long but earns its place given there is no output schema.

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?

Covers the returned fields (compensating for the absent output schema), ordering, both filtering paths, pagination, required permissions, and a PII usage restriction. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and responsibly.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `query` semantics (matches email, name, or company) and `demoId` (filter by demo) are clarified beyond their bare property names, and `cursor` is reinforced. Only `limit` is left fully to the schema, where min/max/default already make it 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?

States a specific resource (lead-form/email-gate submissions) with scope and ordering ('newest first') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell it apart from list_demos, list_collections, or get_analytics without opening a schema.

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?

Explains how to narrow results ('Search by `query` (email, name or company) or filter by demo') and how to page, but never says when to prefer this over get_analytics or other list_* siblings that expose overlapping entity data. Usage is implied through mechanics rather than stated through selection criteria.

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