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). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: ordering (newest first), page size cap (up to 100), the cursor round-trip ('pass next_cursor back as cursor'), and the required Cotlet API key with app access.

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?

The lead-in sentence and the second sentence restate the same idea ('leads from your listings, newest first' appears twice), which is wasted space. The useful, front-loadable details (pagination, auth) are present but buried behind the repetition.

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 usefully sketches the return contents (contact, listing, agent, time received), and it covers ordering, pagination and auth. For a 5-parameter, all-optional read tool whose params are fully documented in the schema, this is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the terse schema text by explaining the cursor workflow ('pass next_cursor back as cursor for the next page') and the page size cap, giving the agent operational meaning for two of the five parameters.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (leads) and adds scope (from your listings, newest first) plus the fields returned (contact, listing, agent, time received). This clearly separates it from property-finder_list_listings and property-finder_list_agents, though it never explicitly names an alternative, so it sits just below the top tier.

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?

Usage is implied by 'leads that came in through your listings' and the pagination instructions, and it states the auth prerequisite. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to another tool, so it remains minimum viable.

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