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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and details filter semantics, including source examples and allowable range values, which is meaningful context for a list tool. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination behavior, or response shape.

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 well-structured: the action is front-loaded, followed by a tight filter list and a practical use-case note. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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?

It covers all parameters, the read-only nature, and a concrete use case, which is strong for a first-call list tool. However, with no output schema, it omits what the response contains, default ordering, and default range, leaving minor uncertainty for an agent.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: stage as a stage id, source with concrete examples, q as name/company/email search, range with allowed values, and limit/offset for pagination. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'List leads in the CRM pipeline.' It is easily distinguished from sibling tools such as crm_get_lead (single lead), crm_list_stages, and other CRM operations, and the filter list reinforces its scope.

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 provides a concrete use case: 'Great first call for "who replied to me?"' and emphasizes that it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it, leaving some routing decisions to inference.

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