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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by exposing the underlying endpoint (GET /leadsStatuses) and clarifying the semantic of the returned names as filter values, though it says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence giving purpose, then a compact usage hint, then the endpoint. Every clause earns its place 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?

For a read-only reference-list tool with full schema coverage, annotations carrying the safety profile, and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs. The only minor gap is the absence of any note on pagination despite limit/offset parameters.

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%, with limit and offset both documented in the schema including defaults and the next_offset convention. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the lead statuses of the account.' The resource is unambiguous and distinct from sibling lookups like list_sources or list_industries, though the description does not explicitly contrast itself against those siblings.

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 parenthetical 'use the names as the status filter or value on leads' hints at how the returned data feeds into filtering leads, which implies the workflow context. However, it never states when to call this tool versus the other list_* reference tools, so usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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