leads

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

With no annotations, the description does carry real behavioral weight: it discloses the payload breadth ('all 33 columns') and an auth-style prerequisite ('subscriber key'). It does not say what happens when the company is not found, whether the lookup is exact or fuzzy, or whether the subscriber key must be passed by the caller — and the schema has no such parameter, leaving that unresolved.

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 short sentences with the scope front-loaded and zero padding. The final clause is slightly cryptic in context but costs almost nothing in length.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (33 columns) reasonably well. However, the dangling subscriber-key requirement — not represented in the schema — and the absence of not-found behavior leave the agent with an open question before invoking.

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% and the single 'company' parameter is already documented as 'Company name or website'. The description's 'by name or website' merely restates it, adding no format, matching, or ambiguity guidance (e.g., which wins if both could match).

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 resource and scope: the full record of one company, looked up by name or website. The singular 'One company's full record' implicitly contrasts with the plural siblings (leads, sample_leads), but it never names them, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent can infer this is a single-entity lookup versus the list-style siblings, but there is no explicit 'use this when... instead of leads/sample_leads'. The trailing 'Needs the subscriber key' hints at a prerequisite without saying what to do about it.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose the latest-file default and an authentication prerequisite (subscriber key), which are genuinely useful. It says nothing about volume, pagination, or what an empty day returns, which matters for a retrieval tool whose result set size is controlled by 'limit'.

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 payload contents are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by two short operational notes. Dense but readable, with no filler sentences; only the slightly promotional phrasing ('every contact path') costs it a point.

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 three optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description usefully sketches the returned fields and the auth requirement. It still leaves the relationship between 'date' and 'latest file' and the behavior at the limit boundary unexplained, so an agent cannot fully predict the response.

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 date format, need enum values, and the 1-200 range are already documented in structured fields. The description's 'Defaults to the latest file' duplicates the schema default rather than adding new semantics for any of the three parameters.

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 names the resource and its scope ('the leads for one day') and enumerates the payload it carries (need, opener, contact paths), which is more informative than a bare name. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling 'lead' or 'sample_leads' tools, leaving the agent to guess which one returns the full daily set.

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?

'Defaults to the latest file' implies the common no-argument call and 'Needs the subscriber key' signals a prerequisite, so usage is partially inferable. There is no explicit when-to-use versus 'lead' or 'sample_leads', and no guidance on when to pass a date versus relying on the default.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result contains ten leads, recent source data, specific fields, and that no key is needed, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, whether the data is static or live, or any rate limits.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the sample size and source first, then enumerates the key contents and the no-key access condition. There is no redundant or wasted language.

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 simple, parameterless sample-data tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned and what fields are included. It could be slightly stronger by clarifying how this differs from the sibling lead tools or whether the sample is static.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and nothing in the description creates confusion about inputs.

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 resource as ten real sample leads from a recent LeadMarmot file and lists the included fields. It distinguishes itself somewhat through 'sample' and 'No key needed', though it does not explicitly compare itself to the sibling tools 'lead' and 'leads'.

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 phrase 'No key needed' implies a usage context, likely for quick access or demonstration without authentication. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus 'lead' or 'leads', nor does it state exclusions or alternatives.

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