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

Annotations already cover read-only/no-destruct, but the description adds real value beyond them: the newest-first ordering, the 100-lead page cap, and the authentication requirement (Cotlet API key with access to this app). That auth and pagination context is exactly what annotations don't convey.

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-loads the resource and returned fields, then filters, pagination, identifier reuse and auth in tight successive sentences. No filler.

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 describes the returned shape (property address, pipeline, status, assignee, tags, lead_id) and pagination, so an agent knows what it gets back. Minor gaps remain around default page size interaction, but coverage is strong.

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, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates the filter dimensions and adds a note that pages hold up to 100 leads, but adds no syntax or default details 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) plus the returned fields and sort order (newest first), which is more than a bare restatement. It doesn't name a conflicting sibling like resimpli_get_lead, but the note about using lead_id in the other tools implicitly frames it as the collection endpoint.

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?

Gives clear context: filter by search text, pipeline, status IDs or tag, and page through results. It does not state when to prefer resimpli_get_lead for a single lead, so exclusions are absent but the usage context is clear.

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