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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by noting it includes the latest AI lead score when available, which is beyond the structured annotations and informs the agent about data content. No contradictions with 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?

Two concise sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by a single highlight (AI lead score) and a note on filters. Perfectly front-loaded and every word 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is sufficient. It covers scope and filters, and the schema documents pagination. It doesn't mention ordering or edge cases, but with the output schema present and no nested objects, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 each parameter already has a clear description (limit, offset, source, status, agent_id). The tool description adds only a grouping phrase ('optional status/source/agent filters') which restates the schema without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantic load.

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 ('List') and a concrete resource ('leads') scoped to the authenticated business, and it names the optional filters (status/source/agent). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'get_lead' (single lookup) and 'upsert_lead' (create/update) without needing to open their schemas.

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 makes clear it lists multiple leads for the current business, which implies it is for browsing/filtering rather than fetching a single lead. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough that an agent would not confuse it with get_lead or upsert_lead.

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