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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the underlying endpoint (POST /v1/leads:list), which is mildly useful given a POST verb on a read operation, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, result limits, or what a lead record contains.

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 with the purpose stated first and no filler. The endpoint reference is the only marginal sentence, though it does explain why a list operation is a POST.

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 four-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description omits what a lead object contains and how paging terminates, which an agent needs to consume results. Annotations cover the read-only safety profile, but the return shape remains undisclosed.

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 coverage is 75%, with page_size, company_id, and page_token documented in the schema itself; only phone_number is undocumented. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("List sales leads") and disambiguates the domain term by glossing leads as "potential customers." It does not distinguish this from the sibling moego_get_lead (single-lead fetch) or moego_list_customers, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this rather than moego_get_lead or moego_list_customers, and no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that company_id comes from moego_list_companies, which only appears in the schema). Usage is implied by the tool name alone.

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