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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that, notably that score bands are still in shadow mode and that each list corresponds to one import/search.

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 sentences and front-loads the core purpose and return contents before the downstream usage note. It is slightly dense with emoji and Portuguese-only phrasing, but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only listing tool with annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (lead totals and score-band counts) and how the names are used downstream. The admin-only constraint on target_user_id is left to the schema, but overall the definition is complete enough to call correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter, target_user_id, and the schema provides a complete description noting it is admin-only. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists lead-source lists (one per import/search) and reports total leads plus counts per score band A/B/C. This is clear and distinguishes it from plain lead listing tools like list_contacts or list_domain_checker_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 explains that the returned list_name should be used in list_domain_checker_leads or get_lead_funnel, which is useful downstream guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over list_domain_checker_leads or list_contacts, leaving the selection context implied.

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