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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the description's only added behavioral signal is the filter surface. It says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, result caps, or response shape, which matters for a list endpoint with page/page_size parameters. Some value added, but not rich context.

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, filter surface front-loaded, API mapping tucked at the end as a secondary detail. Zero filler.

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 10-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names the primary filter dimensions and identifies the backing endpoint, which is enough for an agent to select and call it. The gap is pagination/sort behavior and the location_ids conditional, but annotations and the 100%-covered schema carry most of the load.

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% across all 10 parameters, so the schema already documents enums, pagination, and sort options fully; baseline is 3. The description restates a subset of filters (status, customer, employees, tags, source) but omits sort_by, sort_direction, page, page_size, and the location_ids multi-location caveat, adding little 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 (list) and resource (leads) plus the filterable dimensions, and the 'Housecall Pro: GET /leads' mapping pins the operation precisely. It is clearly distinguished from the singular housecall_get_lead and the write-side housecall_create_lead by name alone. It stops short of an explicit 'not this sibling' statement, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The listed filter dimensions imply 'use this to browse/search leads', and the pairing with housecall_get_lead is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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