chase_leads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the filtering criterion (new leads past SLA) but nothing about the action taken, whether anything is mutated, auth requirements, or how SLA is determined relative to stale_after_hours.

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?

One short, front-loaded line with no filler; the qualifier 'NEW ... past SLA' comes before the directive. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, but every token does work.

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 values need not be explained, but for a tool with zero annotations and an undocumented parameter the description should say what 'chase/propose' entails and how staleness is computed. Those gaps are not covered anywhere else.

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?

The single parameter stale_after_hours (default 2) has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The description's 'past SLA' hints at a threshold but does not clarify whether it maps to stale_after_hours or is a separate SLA definition.

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 names a specific resource and scope: NEW leads that are past SLA, which tells an agent what set it returns. However, the metaphorical verb 'chase' and the phrase 'propose these first' leave the actual operation vague, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like hot_leads, sla_status, or follow_ups.

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?

'Propose these first' gives an implied priority directive, suggesting the agent should surface these ahead of other lead sets. It does not state when-not to use it, nor name a sibling alternative for a different priority or lead type.

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