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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose that results are scoped to the authenticated user and that 'fresh' leads are AI-ranked. It is silent on pagination behavior, whether the ranking applies to other statuses, read-only semantics, and any rate limits — meaningful gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the status list is scannable, with no wasted prose. The trailing '### Responses: **200**: Successful Response... Content-Type: application/json' block is auto-generated filler that adds nothing and slightly dilutes the structure.

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 five-parameter, zero-required list endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, filtering, and the success shape. It stops short of describing what a returned lead record looks like or how limit/offset pagination behaves, so the agent has enough to invoke it but not a full picture.

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 40%, so the description needs to compensate. It fully explains the most important parameter (status, including the default and the AI-ranked property of 'fresh') and confirms the 200/JSON response, but says nothing about limit, offset, or min_quality — the last of which is a 0-1 numeric threshold whose meaning is not obvious from 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Return leads for the authenticated user, filtered by outreach status' — which is clearly more informative than the tool name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_all_leads_admin, get_lead_stats, or get_outreach_queue, leaving the agent to infer which lead-listing tool applies.

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?

The status breakdown gives real selection guidance ('fresh — not yet contacted', 'queued — queued for outreach', 'contacted — already emailed'), so an agent can pick a filter knowingly. But it never says when to call this tool rather than get_outreach_queue or get_all_leads_admin, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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