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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: results are ordered newest first, some fields may be absent ('conversation ID when known'), and form answers are visitor-authored — a useful untrusted-content warning for an agent that may act on those strings.

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 sentences, no filler, with the resource and ordering front-loaded and the visitor-authored caveat placed last. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained in detail, and the description still summarizes it. The main omission is retrieval limits: 'limit' caps at 50 with no offset or cursor parameter, so an agent cannot tell that this tool returns only a bounded slice of the newest leads and offers no paging beyond that.

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 coverage is 67%: 'since' and 'agentId' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' only carries default/min/max with no prose. The description mentions none of the three parameters, so it adds no meaning about filtering or page-size behavior; the baseline 3 for partial-coverage schemas 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('List leads that visitors submitted through the account's agent lead forms') plus the shape of the returned record (form answers, page, related conversation ID). That is clearly distinct from siblings such as list_conversations or get_agent_insights, so an agent can pick this one without opening the schema.

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 only implied: the mention of 'related conversation ID' hints that get_conversation is the follow-up, but the description never states when to use this tool versus list_conversations or when not to use it. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no named alternative.

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