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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. Beyond the annotations it adds substantial context: 200 is a hard cap not a raiseable default, rows are ordered newest first, quality verdicts come from capture-time checks, and bad leads are stored but were never mailed.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then paging constraints, then the quality semantics. Dense but every sentence carries information an agent needs; 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey what a row looks like; it names the quality field and its values but doesn't enumerate other row fields. For a list tool with annotated safety and clear paging, this is nearly complete.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does for limit (hard cap) and offset (paging semantics with example), plus the meaning of the quality enum values. The project param relies on its own schema description, which is adequate.

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 (list captured leads), plus ordering (newest first) and scope (current project). It doesn't explicitly route against the sibling read_lead for fetching a single lead, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete usage mechanics: the 200 cap is hard, offset paging is shown with a worked example (limit 50 + offset 50 returns leads 51 onward), and quality filters the list. It lacks an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-read_lead statement.

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