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 the enumerable filter set, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or permissions; with annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Minor waste in the redundant 'Get Leads in a List - Retrieve all leads/contacts in a specific list' restatement, but nothing bloated.

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 a full output schema, complete parameter documentation and safety annotations, the definition covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is routing guidance versus look-alike siblings such as get_sequence_leads.

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 coverage is 100%, including detailed notes on status semantics and the archived 'truthy only' caveat, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's filter list (search, archived, sort, sequence, status) merely echoes parameter names and adds no syntax or interaction detail.

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: retrieve all leads/contacts in a specific list, plus the filter surface. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like get_sequence_leads or get_lead_activity_by_id, which an agent must pick between.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'in a specific list' – an agent can infer this is the list-scoped lead reader, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_sequence_leads (which also filters leads) or get_all_lists. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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