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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: it searches activity logs including comments and events, and returns a total hit count plus one page of leads.

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?

The description is two compact sentences that front-load the core search behavior and include the return shape and endpoint with no 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?

With full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential behavioral and return-shape context. It could be stronger only by explicitly differentiating this from find_leads.

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 defines query, page, per_page and list_ids in detail. The description only reinforces list scoping and pagination at a high level, which is appropriate but adds 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 and resource: free-text search across lead data and activity logs, with optional list scoping. It clearly conveys the search behavior, but does not distinguish itself from the sibling find_leads tool.

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 'like the search box in myPhoner' analogy and optional list limitation imply when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over find_leads or list_leads.

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