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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that query lists resolve members dynamically from included/excluded lists and filter rules, which goes beyond the annotations. The readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation, and the description adds useful nuance about how the list behaves.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence provides actionable lookup context. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the complex nested query schema and the absence of both an output schema and any field descriptions, the description leaves substantial gaps. An agent still lacks enough information to correctly construct the query.filter, query.logic, and query.excludedLeadIds fields. The ID lookup pointers help but do not complete the 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that campaignId and include/exclude leadListIds can be discovered via list tools, but it says nothing about the query.logic enum, the filter array structure, or excludedLeadIds. This is insufficient for a nested query object with undocumented fields.

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 clearly states the specific operation: creating a dynamic query-type lead list within a campaign. It distinguishes this from the static create_lead_list sibling by emphasizing the 'query-type' nature and how members are resolved dynamically.

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 provides concrete lookup guidance: use campaignstack_list_campaigns for campaign IDs and campaignstack_list_lead_lists for include/exclude refs. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with the static create_lead_list or update_lead_list, so the when-not-to-use guidance is only implicit.

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