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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It still adds real context beyond them: results are ordered newest first, each entry carries status and lead count, and the call costs nothing ('Free'), which matters for an agent choosing among metered tools. It says nothing about pagination or what happens beyond the default limit, which is the only real gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the resource, then ordering, then return fields, then cost. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs reordering.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description usefully summarizes what comes back (status, lead count) and the sort order. A note on what happens past the 50-result ceiling would make it complete, but nothing essential for calling it correctly 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?

There is a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Default 10', min 1, max 50), so the schema already does the work. The description mentions no parameter behavior at all; 'newest first' describes ordering, not the limit. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (the searches this account ran) plus the ordering and the returned fields (status, lead count), so an agent knows exactly what the call yields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as create_lead_search or get_search_status, but the resource is distinct enough to separate it from all listed names.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to review prior searches. The word 'Free' weakly signals a cost-based choice against paid siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative.

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