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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the ~6-second wait, page re-read window, cache nuance, ref validity extension, failed/expired status, and the 15-minute disappearance. No annotation contradiction exists; the description enriches what the agent needs to know about side effects and lifecycle.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded with its core action, and nearly every clause contributes needed behavioral detail. It is somewhat long and could be organized into bullets, but no sentence is 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the whole call-and-refresh cycle: when to retry, what windows apply, what error to expect, and what to do after expiry. Nothing required to call it 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?

The schema already documents searchId at 100% coverage, so the description only adds provenance by tying it to search_lead_finder. This is mildly useful but does not meaningfully expand parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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: 'Reads a search started with search_lead_finder, by its searchId.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_lead_finder and other get_lead_finder_* tools, and the title reinforces the read action.

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?

Gives explicit lifecycle guidance: calling again while the search is still running is fine, re-reading within 10 minutes extends ref validity, and after 15 minutes the search is not found. It also points to running search_lead_finder again as the refresh path, which effectively covers both when to use this tool and how to recover after expiry.

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