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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description adds value by explaining that data changes as enrichment progresses and includes verified fields (emails, phones, owner, socials, business profile). This gives the agent useful expectations about dynamic results and polling behavior.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and polling guidance. Every sentence delivers meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return value structure, and the description provides the essential context: polling behavior, enrichment progression, and the fields included per lead. It is complete for a read-only retrieval tool with good annotations and schema coverage.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the description doesn't need to add much. It doesn't elaborate on limit/offset/search_id beyond what the schema already says, landing at the baseline for well-covered 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('a search's leads'), while also describing what each lead includes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on retrieving results with enrichment verification, not creating searches or exporting data.

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 provides clear usage context: fetch results and poll until enrichment is complete. It implies this tool is meant for retrieving in-progress results, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like query_leads or export_leads.

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