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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds real behavioral context: the call is 'FREE', wait_seconds blocks up to 45 seconds for in-flight enrichment, and the summary with a search_id counts the whole search rather than just the returned page.

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 cost flag 'FREE.' and the core purpose are front-loaded before the field list, and no sentence is pure filler. The middle sentences run long and pack return-field enumerations densely, which slightly hurts scannability but not information value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value burden and it largely does: it describes the compact view, the summary/next-steps payload, and how detail='full' changes output. Pagination behavior and the exact shape of the summary are left implicit, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, so every parameter is already documented at the schema level. The description mostly restates that coverage (search_id from search_leads, wait_seconds up to 45, detail 'full') without adding much new meaning, 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read saved leads') and then enumerates exactly which fields come back (email and verification state, contact, relevance verdict with site sentence, software, technologies, signals). It also distinguishes itself from search_leads by requiring that tool's search_id, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_search_results or count_saved_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?

It gives clear operational guidance: 'Pass the search_id from search_leads to read that search' and 'omit for all results', plus the wait_seconds timing tip. It does not explicitly rate itself against alternatives such as get_search_results or count_saved_leads, so the routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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