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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does usefully declare 'Read-only', which is the most important trait for an agent deciding whether this mutates state. Beyond that it says nothing about ordering, what an empty result means, behavior for an invalid campaign id, or whether discovery must be enabled on the campaign.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with what is returned and ends with the safety trait. The inline status list is somewhat redundant against the enum but is short enough not to hurt readability.

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 four-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is returned but leaves the response shape (fields per lead), pagination semantics, and the relationship to the campaign's discovery configuration entirely undocumented.

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 75%: id, limit and offset are already documented in the schema, including defaults and bounds. The description's only parameter contribution is enumerating status values, which restates the schema enum rather than explaining what each status means (e.g. 'enriching' is in-flight and will change on re-query).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Leads found by AI lead discovery for a campaign') with the added scope qualifier 'filterable by status'. It implicitly separates this from list_campaign_email_leads and crm_list_leads, but never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with get_campaign_discovery, which sits in the same feature area.

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 use case is inferable from the name and the enumerated status filter, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_campaign_discovery or list_campaign_email_leads, and no stated prerequisite beyond the schema note that id comes from list_campaigns.

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