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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuine context beyond them: the newest-first ordering and the fact that each lead carries an evidence quote and a source link. It says nothing about pagination behavior, which for a list tool is a notable omission.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the filter list and return details. Every sentence carries information; no filler. It could be marginally denser by folding pagination into the same space, but the structure is sound.

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 does helpfully describe the return shape (evidence quote plus original-post link), which is a plus. Against a 5-param tool with a nested filters object containing seven undocumented sub-fields, though, it leaves view, icpId, leadType, keywordId, and paging behavior unexplained.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only names some filter dimensions (tier with its three values, stage, platform, text). It is silent on page, limit, siteId, view, icpId, leadType, and keywordId, leaving several params documented in neither place. It adds partial value but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('List scored leads for a Project') plus a scope detail ('newest first'), which lets an agent distinguish it from read-side siblings like get_leads_overview or list_prospects. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 description implies when to use it (to browse scored leads, optionally narrowed by tier, stage, platform, or text), giving the agent usable filtering context. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_leads_overview or list_prospects, nor any prerequisites, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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