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 genuinely new behavioral fact not in the schema (default sort order, most recent first) plus the underlying endpoint. The 'max 100' cap and record defaults are already repeated verbatim in the schema, so the net new value 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 the core purpose and sort behavior front-loaded, followed by filters and paging. Dense but readable; the trailing API endpoint is arguably padding for an agent that never sees raw HTTP, costing it a perfect score.

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 five-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering and paging adequately but says nothing about the shape or fields of the returned lead records. Minimal-viable rather than complete given the absence of an output schema.

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 all five parameters already carry documented semantics including defaults for only_open and start_date. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 leads') and adds scope details (sorted by LeadDateTime descending), which is clearly distinct from siblings like workiz_list_jobs or workiz_list_team. However it never names an alternative or explicitly contrasts itself with them, 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?

The description enumerates available filters and paging mechanics but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus workiz_get_lead (single record) or workiz_list_jobs. It reads as a capability list rather than usage direction, with no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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