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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and non-destructive; the description adds real behavioral context by scoping results to authorized workspace leads and explicitly excluding notes and estimated values. This tells the agent what to expect and what not to expect from responses, adding value beyond the 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?

One sentence delivers the action, scope, searchable fields, and a key exclusion without any filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every clause 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 six optional but fully documented parameters, read-only annotations, and a clear field boundary, an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema means the description could have said more about the exact return shape or matching semantics, but this is a minor gap for a bounded search.

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 description does not need to explain the parameters. It does map the searchable fields (contact, source, status, service interest) onto the schema, but it adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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?

The description clearly identifies the verb ('Searches') and resource ('authorized workspace leads'), and adds useful scope limits: only contact, source, status, and service-interest fields are searchable, while notes and estimated values are excluded. It does not explicitly contrast with the get-lead sibling for retrieving a single lead, so it falls just short of a top score.

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 implies the tool is for lead searches within the authorized workspace and hints that it is inappropriate when notes or estimated values are needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer get-lead or another sibling, and it does not state when the bounded search is insufficient.

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