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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination/ordering behavior, no default page size, no note on result caps — which is where value could have been added given the 25/100 limit.

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 short fragment with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of a verb, usage context, and pagination notes. Nothing is front-loaded because there is only one clause.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description's enumeration of returned fields (contact details, stage, quality score) partially compensates for that. However, for a paginated list tool it omits result ordering, page size defaults, and how cursor consumption works end-to-end, leaving the agent to infer the call pattern.

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 67% (cursor and search documented; limit undocumented), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'contact details' loosely corresponds to the search fields but adds no syntax, matching behavior, or guidance on the undocumented limit parameter.

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 is a noun phrase naming the resource ('Sales leads') plus the fields returned (contact details, stage, quality score), so the resource is identifiable. But there is no verb and no explicit statement that it lists/filters leads, so it largely restates the name. It does not distinguish itself from list_opportunities or create_lead.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to call this versus list_opportunities (a closely related sibling) or get_contact. The only hint of usage is implicit in the pagination cursor schema field.

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