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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context with cursor-paginated pagination, the requirement to pass nextCursor back unchanged, and the instruction to keep jobToken private. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every clause earns its place: purpose first, then critical pagination and token-handling instructions.

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?

For a read-only paginated retrieval tool with full input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, pagination protocol, and security handling. Nothing essential 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 fully documents all five parameters. The description adds only marginal operational guidance ('pass nextCursor back unchanged') beyond what the schema says, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('job status or one cursor-paginated result page'). This clearly identifies the tool as the read/poll operation for a lead search job and distinguishes it from sibling lifecycle tools like start_lead_search, refine_lead_search, retry_lead_search, and cancel_lead_search.

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 clearly implies use after a lead search job has been created, for reading status or paging through results. It gives operational context through 'pass nextCursor back unchanged,' though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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