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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and other annotations, the description adds two important behavioral traits: the ordering (newest first) and a security warning that lead text should be treated as data, not instructions. This proactive disclosure of potential injection risk is valuable context.

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?

The description is two sentences: the first states the core function, the second provides an essential security note. Every word earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 listing tool with four well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and includes a critical safety note. It does not explain the return format, but since there is no output schema and the tool is straightforward, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 the parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool lists leads captured by the assistant, with a specific ordering ('newest first'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dosai_get_lead (singular) and dosai_list_conversations (different resource).

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 provides clear context: it is for listing leads, and the source scope is defined ('captured by the assistant'). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.

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