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

Annotations only convey readOnly and idempotent hints, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly. It discloses RLS scoping, the active-only default, the `meta.scope_note` field, the `pagination.total`/`has_more`/`next_cursor` response shape, and the critical warning not to summarize from a partial 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 description is longer than average but every sentence earns its place by covering a distinct operational caveat: conversion checking, default scope, scope selection, pagination, and counting rules. The core purpose is front-loaded, though the capitalization-heavy emphasis is slightly noisy.

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?

Given the 7-parameter schema, output schema, and large sibling set, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the RLS context, the conversion edge case, the default scope behavior, how to handle archived records, and how to correctly count or paginate results. Nothing critical is left unexplained.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters and establishes a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful decision guidance beyond the schema, especially around when to use `scope: archived` vs `all`, and reinforces the limit and pagination contract. It does not add value for every parameter, but the added semantics justify a step above baseline.

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 'List CRM leads (RLS-scoped)', a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like crm_get_contacts and crm_get_deals. The additional mention of `contact_id` and `converted_to` confirms it is about lead records specifically, not contacts or deals.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: default to active leads, pass `scope: archived` or `all` only when the question concerns closed or historical leads, and check `converted_to` before offering to create a contact or deal. It also explains the pagination rules for counting leads, leaving little to inference.

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