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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds meaningful operational detail: it excludes certain lead categories, returns only tags and counts, never lead names/emails, and defines segments as exact comma-separated tokens in crm_leads.source. This is valuable context the annotations do not provide, and it does not contradict them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and scope appear in the first sentence, with supporting source semantics and usage guidance following. The routing line is short and actionable rather than redundant.

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-required-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to call it correctly: it states the input scope, return contents, exclusions, and the underlying data model. Pagination or error details are not necessary at this complexity level.

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 100%, and the lone companyId parameter is already clearly documented as the FreedomOS company id to act within. The description's phrase 'for the current company' mildly reinforces the parameter but adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('live lead segment tags for the current company') with precise scope qualifiers: server-computed counts and exclusions for do-not-contact, archived, and test leads. It also differentiates itself from the sibling segment_leads by framing itself as the read-only listing that resolves exact tags.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it ('when the operator asks which lead segments or event tags exist') and where it fits in a workflow ('before segment_leads to resolve a loosely-named segment'). It names an alternative but does not include explicit when-not conditions or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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