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

Adds meaningful context beyond the readOnly/openWorld/destructive annotations: owner-only access, newest-first ordering, and a special response when the form is off. It does not cover rate limits or permission details, but the annotation bar is lower and the added behavior is useful.

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?

Compact at three sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence is dense and phrased awkwardly as a noun phrase, but the content is front-loaded enough for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Output schema, annotations, and full schema coverage mean the description need not explain return values or parameter syntax. It still includes owner restriction and form-off behavior, making it complete for this low-complexity read tool.

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 page, limit, and catalogId are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

Identifies the resource clearly: visitors who submitted a catalog's lead form, along with the returned fields. It is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a verb and does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool, but an agent can still tell it lists 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 description notes the owner-only restriction and the empty-form state, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool routing. Usage is implied from the resource description rather than stated.

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