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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description adds real value: it discloses the pagination contract via has_more, that extra fields are included, that CSV is spreadsheet-safe, and that the call costs no credits. It still omits whether CSV is returned inline or as a file reference.

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, each doing distinct work: what is exported, how to paginate, and the cost. Front-loaded with the action and formats, 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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming has_more and the inclusion of extra fields. But it leaves open the shape of the CSV/JSON payload and the boundary with export_list_file, which matters for a tool whose whole job is producing an export artifact.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explicitly enumerates the two formats and 'a page' implies offset/limit, but list_id and the page-size bounds are left entirely to the schema's types and constraints.

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 ('Export a page of saved leads') plus the output formats and scope ('including all extra fields'). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tool export_list_file, which an agent would reasonably confuse it with.

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?

'Continue while has_more is true' gives a concrete pagination loop, but there is no guidance on when to choose this over export_list_file, get_list_leads, or preview_leads. Usage is implied by the name rather than explained.

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