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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: pages cap at 100 leads and the call requires the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app. The explicit auth requirement is exactly the kind of context annotations do not carry.

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?

Most sentences carry useful information, but the lead sentence is a confusing fragment that front-loads ambiguous phrasing ('Leads from Reports, Leads by channel') instead of the core action. The remaining details on channels, contact handoff, pagination, and auth are appropriately terse.

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 list tool with full schema coverage and annotations but no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what a returned lead contains (listing of interest plus arrival time), pagination limits, and the auth prerequisite. Only the relationship to bayut_export_leads is left unaddressed.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all five parameters including the channel enum and the limit range. The description restates the channel set and the 100-per-page cap but adds no format or syntax detail (e.g., cursor semantics or since format) beyond the 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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('leads'), and adds scope detail: five channels (email, sms, phone, whatsapp, chat), the listing of interest, and arrival time. This cleanly separates it from bayut_get_lead, which it explicitly points to. However, the opening fragment ('Leads from Reports, Leads by channel') is garbled and no distinction is drawn from the close sibling bayut_export_leads.

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 offers one concrete routing rule: 'Pass lead_id to get_lead for the contact details', which tells the agent when to hand off to a sibling. But there is no guidance on when to use this list versus bayut_export_leads or how it relates to other lead-reading tools, leaving the main alternative-choice question unanswered.

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