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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated ('returns a page of leads') and names the underlying REST call, which is useful context, but says nothing about maximum page size, sort defaults, or result shape beyond what the schema already carries.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. The REST endpoint note is arguably redundant but compact and mildly useful.

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?

For a 12-parameter, all-optional, read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: filters optional, paginated results. It lacks detail on pagination limits and return fields, but the schema and readOnlyHint annotation carry most of the burden.

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 every one of the 12 parameters (city, tags, assignee_ids, sort_by, page_size, etc.) is already documented with defaults and bounds in the schema. The description adds only that all filters are optional, which is a marginal contribution.

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 the specific verb (search/list) and resource (leads), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like copper_search_companies, copper_search_people, and copper_search_opportunities. The REST endpoint hint reinforces the operation. It stops short of 5 only because it doesn't contrast itself with the read-one sibling copper_get_lead.

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?

'All filters optional' implies the tool is safe to call with an empty body, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus copper_get_lead or copper_list_activities, and no exclusions. Usage is inferable from the name and resource rather than stated.

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