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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little beyond the endpoint. The description does not mention any limitations (e.g., no pagination details, no sorting, no auth specifics) or what data is returned. For a tool with no additional behavioral disclosure, this is minimal.

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 description is extremely short, which is concise, but it is arguably under-specified rather than efficiently written. It front-loads the purpose, but the lack of additional information means it isn't ideal. However, for a simple list operation, it may be acceptable.

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?

With no output schema, annotations provide safety but no return format details, and parameters are undocumented, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention pagination, response structure, or filtering options. For a list endpoint, agents need to know what data is returned and how to filter, which is missing.

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?

The schema has 2 parameters with zero description coverage. The endpoint '/api/v1/leads' implies the parameters 'query' and 'account' are used for filtering, but the description does not explain their meaning or format. With no schema descriptions, the description should compensate but only provides the endpoint, giving minimal guidance. A baseline 3 is fair because the endpoint hints at usage.

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 it searches for leads and references the API endpoint, clearly indicating a read intent. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like datacrazy_leads_get or datacrazy_leads_activities_list, which may also involve leads. The verb 'Buscar' and resource 'leads' are clear enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention filtering scope, pagination, or how it differs from datacrazy_leads_get or datacrazy_leads_list (which is the same name? Actually sibling is datacrazy_leads_get, etc.). There is no explicit context or exclusions, only a terse verb phrase.

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