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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond the annotations: the default sort order (newest first) and what each returned lead contains (evidence quote and a link to the original post), which helps an agent know what it will get back.

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 tight sentences with the core operation and sort order front-loaded, followed by filtering and return contents. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 partially compensates by sketching the shape of a lead. However, for a paginated list tool with a rich nested filter object it omits pagination behavior (defaults of page 1 / limit 20, max 50) and never explains the 'view' filter (quality vs all vs archived), which materially changes results.

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% across 5 params, including a nested filters object with nine sub-properties, so the description must carry the burden. It only names tier, stage, platform and text search, leaving page, limit, siteId, view, icpId, leadType and keywordId completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ordering ('newest first') and the filter dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from get_lead (single lead) and get_leads_overview, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 you'd reach for this tool ('filter by tier, stage, platform, or text') but never states when to use it versus get_lead or get_leads_overview, nor any prerequisites such as needing a projectId to exist. Usage is inferable, not explicit.

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