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

Even though readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already cover the safety profile, the description adds non-obvious behavior: leads are aggregated per respondent across all forms, newest activity first, and the hasUpcomingBooking filter applies within the page so counts remain unfiltered. That is real behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Four sentences cover the core behavior, default ordering, filter dimensions, and an important lexical rule. It is compact and front-loaded with the main action. It could be split into a more scannable format, but nothing 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, 10-parameter listing endpoint with an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics (one lead per user, default ordering, filter options, team-defined codes) without re-heating the schema. It does not over-explain return fields, which is fine given the output schema exists. A little more about pagination behavior would round it out.

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 schema already describes all 10 parameters (100% coverage), so the requirement is low. The description still adds value by explaining the identity rules ('reference a lead by leadId, a respondent by examineeId'), clarifying the team-defined vocabulary, and noting keyword search works against unmasked server-side values. Good but not essential.

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 clear verb and resource ('List the leads (CRM records)') and immediately sharpens the meaning: one lead per respondent across all forms, with specific fields carried. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_records and list_examinees, so an agent can tell what makes this endpoint unique.

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 explicitly gives a prerequisite: 'call list_lead_settings first' to obtain valid status/tag codes and warns 'never guess.' That is solid procedural guidance. It does not, however, spell out when to pick list_leads over other list variants (e.g., list_records or list_examinees), so it falls just short of full score.

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