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

Annotations already declare the read-only, open-world, non-destructive profile, and the description adds the auth requirement (Cotlet API key with app access) and the cursor-based pagination contract. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss page size or result limits.

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 first two sentences are near-duplicates, restating the same resource and field list twice, which wastes space in an otherwise front-loaded description. The remaining sentences are efficient.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and explaining pagination and auth. It is nearly complete for a list tool, missing only return ordering or total-count details.

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 3 is the baseline, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains that iqual_plus/safe_mode view values isolate 'one group' rather than just listing enum tokens, and reiterates the agent='none' and cursor semantics.

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 states a specific verb (Lists) and resource (leads on the Leads page) and names the fields returned (status, source, assigned agent, creation date). It is clearly distinguishable from rently_get_lead, though it never explicitly contrasts with that sibling.

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 gives concrete operating guidance: use view to isolate a group, agent="none" for unassigned leads, and notes the default period is the last month. However it offers no explicit when-to-use vs rently_get_lead or other lead siblings.

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