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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds that results are cursor-paginated, enumerates returned fields (status, type, channel, dates, guest info), and cites the backing endpoint. It stops short of stating rate limits, empty-result behavior, or the max result horizon, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what a lead is before the filters and return fields. The endpoint citation is the only near-redundant element, and nothing is padded.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and pagination mechanism, and no parameters are required so the zero-required constraint is addressed. Missing only edge-case behavior (empty pages, date-range defaults), which is minor for a search tool.

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 schema already documents all 10 parameters including limit, cursor, and the date-range pattern. The description only restates the filter axes and adds the 'or the default' note for agency_uid, which is marginal lift over the schema's own text.

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 (Search) and resource (leads), and explicitly decodes Hostfully's non-obvious terminology (leads = bookings, inquiries, booking requests, calendar blocks). The filter axes and the underlying endpoint make it unmistakable versus get_lead or create_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?

Gives a real invocation constraint ('Give at least one of agency_uid (or the default), property_uid, or lead_uids'), which is useful. But it never says when to choose this over hostfully_get_lead for a known UID or hostfully_list_guests/orders for adjacent data, so sibling routing is left to inference.

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