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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real value: default ordering (newest first) and the return shape (short summary per lead). It also notes the permission constraint on the alternative tool. It omits pagination/limit behavior detail, keeping it just short of 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 tightly written sentences: purpose front-loaded, then matching/filtering semantics, then alternative routing. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema, the description still explains the return format (short summary per lead) and how to get more detail via get_lead. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters with examples. The description restates the matched fields and filters but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Find leads'), plus scope details: which fields free text matches and which filters (team, tag, stage) narrow results. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_lead for full profiles and query_account_data for counts.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this tool for search, get_lead for a full profile by id, and query_account_data for counting/breakdowns (with the owner/admin caveat). The when-to-use-which-tool decision is fully spelled out.

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