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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which is a strong safety signal. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the returning structure of leads, 'Newest activity first by default', and scope across all forms. It doesn't discuss pagination edge behaviors, but the schema covers those details and there is no contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence explains the resource and scoping, the second covers default behavior, the third gives the filter dimensions, and the last gives two critical usage caveats. No redundant phrases or repeated schema text; every sentence adds information.

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?

The annotations, full parameter schema, and output schema together already provide much of the low-level detail. The description covers the rest: core scope, default sort, filter categories, and the essential 'never guess' warning. There is no significant missing context an agent would need to invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value on top: the reminder that status and tag codes are team-defined and must come from list_lead_settings, and the warning to reference leads by explicit identifiers rather than masked emails. These are crucial practical semantics not completely derivable from the parameter descriptions alone.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'List the leads (CRM records) of the current team', with explicit scoping 'one lead per respondent across all forms'. It carries meaningful detail about fields like follow-up status, assignee, tags, submission count, and next upcoming booking, which distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as list_examinees and list_records.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: listing leads with filters and default ordering. It also provides important prerequisite guidance: status and tag codes are team-defined and must be fetched from list_lead_settings first, with the instruction to never guess. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like get_lead for single-lead retrieval, but the use case is otherwise well scoped.

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