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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond the schema: the implicit sort order (LeadDateTime descending) and the API endpoint. It does not discuss pagination termination, total counts, or what happens when filters match nothing, so the added context is modest.

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 compact sentence with zero filler: sort order and scoping constraints are front-loaded, then filters, then paging, then the endpoint reference. Every clause earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers filtering, paging, and ordering well. It stops short of describing the returned record shape or how to detect the end of a result set, which is the only meaningful gap for a paged list endpoint.

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% and each of the five parameters (offset, status, records, only_open, start_date) is fully documented in the schema, including defaults and the 1-100 range. The description only restates 'filter by start date, open-only, and status; page with offset/records (max 100)' without adding format or edge-case meaning, so 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) and resource (leads), and adds the ordering semantics 'most recent first (sorted by LeadDateTime, descending)'. It is trivially distinguishable from get_lead, create_lead, and update_lead in the sibling set, and it even names the underlying Workiz endpoint.

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 description enumerates what can be done (filter by start date/open-only/status, page with offset/records) which implies the retrieval use case, but it never states when to prefer this tool over workiz_get_lead for a specific record or how filters map to intent. Usage is implied, not guided.

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