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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior (newest-first ordering, per-agent scoping, the fields returned) but says nothing about pagination, default page size, or result caps.

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 tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the return shape and ordering packed into a parenthetical. 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?

There is no output schema, and the description partly compensates by naming returned fields and ordering. But for a 3-parameter tool with 33% schema coverage, the undocumented 'only_qualified' flag and the pagination/limit behavior are real gaps that leave the agent guessing.

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 only 33% — only agent_id carries a description (pointing at list_agents). The description does not explain the other two parameters: 'limit' (default 20, max 50) and especially 'only_qualified', whose meaning is never defined anywhere.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (leads) and even names the returned fields (name, email, what they asked) and ordering (newest first). It is clearly distinct from update_lead, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings such as list_conversations or list_unanswered_questions.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given; the only routing hint is the schema note that agent_id comes from list_agents. Nothing tells the agent when to reach for list_leads versus list_conversations or get_report.

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