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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results can be filtered and that it hits GET /leads; it says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or authentication needs.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by capabilities and endpoint. The filter enumeration is slightly redundant against the schema but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would ideally hint at what each lead record returns (the intro mentions owner, status, source, industry, contact details, which partially serves this) but omits pagination/next_offset behavior that the schema only implies. For a 12-parameter list tool it is adequate but not thorough.

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 each of the 12 parameters documented in the schema itself, including defaults and ranges. The description's filter list largely restates those fields and adds no syntax or format detail (e.g. partial-match semantics), 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 (list/search) and resource (leads), with a helpful parenthetical defining leads as 'unqualified prospects' and an endpoint hint (GET /leads). It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource is distinct enough from teamgate_list_people/deals that no confusion arises.

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 enumeration of filterable fields, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this is preferable to teamgate_search, and no mention of prerequisites such as obtaining status or source names first.

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