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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns extra credit by disclosing the data-visibility scope (own leads plus the unclaimed pool), which is genuine behavioral context not present in the annotations, though it says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope before the filter list. Every clause carries information; no filler or restated title text.

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 seven-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the visibility scope, and the filterable fields adequately for correct invocation. The main omission is the 'limit' parameter and any note on what the result set contains, but the essentials are present.

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?

With schema coverage at only 43%, the description carries weight by enumerating the filterable dimensions (name/phone text, status, industry, city, minimum lead score), which maps to five of seven parameters. However, it never mentions the 'limit' parameter and only alludes to 'scope' indirectly, so two parameters remain undocumented in both the schema and the prose.

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?

Names a specific verb (Search) and resource (leads) and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('your own plus the unclaimed pool') that separates it from single-lead siblings like lead_details and from action siblings like claim_lead. It stops short of naming a sibling tool explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 visibility scope ('leads you can see') is implied as the condition for using it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as top_leads_to_call or lead_details for retrieving a single record. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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