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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's added value is real: it discloses newest-first ordering, a 100-lead page size with cursor-based pagination, and an auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'). These behavioral facts are not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then filtering, stages, pagination, and auth in descending order of importance. The opening fragment ('Houzz Pro: Leads with stage, client...') is slightly awkward but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of naming the returned fields, ordering, pagination mechanics, filterable dimensions, and the auth requirement. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit alternative-routing guidance is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description clarifies cursor semantics ('pass next_cursor back as cursor for the next page') and re-lists the stage values, but adds little 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 and resource ('Lists leads from your pipeline, newest first') and enumerates the data returned (stage, client, location, project type, source, tags, last activity). The read/list distinction from siblings like houzz-pro_get_lead and houzz-pro_create_lead is clear from the verb, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 stage, source, tags or a keyword to find the leads you need' gives implied usage for the filter parameters, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g. versus houzz-pro_get_lead for a single lead). Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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