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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the raw endpoint path 'GET /lead-source', which gives no additional behavioral context such as result shape, ordering, or whether the list is tenant-scoped.

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 purpose, with no filler. The endpoint path is of marginal value but is brief enough not to be waste.

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?

A simple, annotation-covered read tool with only two optional paging params, so the bar is low. Still, with no output schema the description could have said what a lead-source record looks like or whether results are paginated, which would make it self-sufficient.

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%: page and limit are both documented in the schema, including the 'pass the previous reply's next_page' chaining hint. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 customer lead sources') so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is distinguishable from write siblings like fieldpulse_create_customer, but it doesn't distinguish itself from the many other list_* enumeration tools in the namespace.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a customer context or that this is a reference-data lookup rather than a customer-scoped query. The agent must infer applicability entirely from the name.

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