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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe read profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the API endpoint mapping but says nothing about pagination traversal, result limits, or ordering defaults beyond what the schema enums already convey.

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, front-loaded sentences: the core action first, filter scope second, API mapping last. No padding or repetition.

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 read-only list tool with 10 optional parameters fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description plus structured fields are nearly sufficient. Only the absence of any hint about the shape/volume of returned lead records keeps it from being fully complete.

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 parameter including enums is documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description restates five of the filter dimensions but adds no syntax, multi-value semantics, or interaction rules beyond 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') plus the filterable dimensions, and even anchors it to the underlying API call (GET /leads). It is clearly a read-list operation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the singular sibling housecall_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?

Usage is implied by the name and the enumerated filters, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of pagination prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling get_lead or list_customers for related lookups.

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