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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load; it does disclose "Read-only" and lists the fields returned (form data, page, status, notes), which is genuine value. It omits anything about permissions, default page size, or ordering, so coverage is partial for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with the resource described before the filtering mechanics. No wasted words, though the parenthetical field list competes for space with the missing id semantics.

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?

Read-only with no output schema keeps the bar low, and stating returned fields is a reasonable substitute. Still, the unexplained required id and absent default/maximum paging behavior leave an agent without enough to call it confidently on first try.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining status filtering and limit/offset paging. Critically, the required `id` parameter (agent UUID, sourced from list_agents) is never explained, so the reader cannot tell that results are scoped per agent, and enum values and defaults remain undocumented.

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 concrete resource (leads from the presentation call-to-action form) and a specific verb (list), with useful context on what each lead carries. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling lead-listing tools such as crm_list_leads or list_campaign_discovered_leads, so an agent must infer the scope from the name alone.

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?

"Filter by status, page with limit/offset" gives implied operating guidance for narrowing and paginating results. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no pointer to the delete/update narrator-lead siblings or to other lead lists.

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