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

Annotations already establish this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: newest-first ordering, a default page size of 25, and the critical caveat that 'total' counts archived/imported/split stored rows and must never be quoted as a request count. That is exactly the kind of trap-avoidance context annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the remainder is a run-on chain of colon-delimited clauses ('researching counts requests in research on all pages: if it exceeds the working rows you read, read on first') that is hard to parse on first read. Every fact is arguably useful, but the structure actively works against comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden of explaining return values and does so: status, targeting, delivered counts, progress state, researching, lead_requests_total, total, and the per-company versus whole-request meaning of requested_contact_count. It is dense and sometimes ambiguous, but an agent calling this tool would not be missing a key semantic.

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 0% and the single nested query parameter is undocumented, so the description must carry the load. It does state paging via page and limit with a default of 25, but omits the maximum of 100 and the page/limit interaction, leaving the nested schema partly unexplained.

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 first clause gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists the workspace's lead requests') plus ordering and the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling listRecurringRequests, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is operational guidance about reading further pages ('if it exceeds the working rows you read, read on first') and about which counter to quote, which implies when and how to call it. But there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over an alternative tool, and no prerequisites are given.

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