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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds little beyond a vague hint of cursor-based behavior; it does not disclose pagination details, response shape, or any account/scope constraints. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness. The parenthetical '(cursor)' adds slight ambiguity but does not meaningfully inflate length, so the description remains appropriately compact.

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 two parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is too minimal to be fully actionable. A simple listing tool may not require extensive documentation, but key aspects like pagination behavior and account scoping are absent.

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 for the two undocumented parameters. It only echoes 'cursor' in parentheses without explaining its meaning or usage, and 'account' is left completely unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lista') and identifies the resource ('leads no Guru'), making the primary action clear. However, the parenthetical '(cursor)' is ambiguous and the description does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools by scope or behavior.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any preconditions or exclusions mentioned. The description simply states the action without contextualizing its place among the many guru_* list and search tools.

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