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

With readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: how each status value is evaluated (first-outreach task vs. any sequence step). It does not document pagination defaults or whether results are ordered, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the filter detail. The second sentence is long and largely duplicates the enum description, so it is slightly redundant but still earns its place as the core disambiguation for status values.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all five parameters are documented in the schema. For a read-only filtered list operation, the description plus structured fields cover everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's explanation of status semantics is verbatim identical to the enum's schema description, so it adds no information the schema does not already carry; skip/limit/workspace_id are entirely left to the schema.

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 leads in a sequence") with the required sequence ID scope implied, which is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like update_sequence or unsubscribe_lead_from_sequence. It does not explicitly differentiate from get_leads or export_sequence_leads, which is the only gap.

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 mention of "Supported filters: status" implies how the tool is used for segmentation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_leads, get_sequence_stats, or export_sequence_leads. Nothing is misleading, but the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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