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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the domain-filter scoping; it does not mention pagination behavior or return characteristics, but the read-only hint covers the safety profile.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient even if sparse in detail.

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?

The presence of an output schema and the readOnlyHint annotation covers return values and safety, and the domain filter is stated. However, with 0% parameter description coverage and no sibling differentiation or pagination context, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent navigating many similar tools.

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 missing parameter documentation. It clarifies that domain is an optional filter, but it says nothing about page or limit semantics, leaving two of three parameters 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 states a specific action and resource—'List leads'—and adds an optional domain filter that clarifies scope. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_lead or list_flags, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar search tools like domain_search.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use list_leads versus alternatives such as domain_search, companies_search, or create_lead. The optional domain filter is the only contextual hint, and no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions are provided.

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