Get Leads in Campaign

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with it. The description adds only that pagination is optional; it does not disclose pagination defaults, ordering, or any edge-case behavior, though for a read-only listing tool that gap is relatively minor.

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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and 'with optional pagination' adds relevant nuance without redundancy.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one required parameter, complete parameter documentation, and an output schema available, the description is sufficient. It does not need to explain return values or parameter details because the structured data already carries that information.

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 campaign_id, page, and limit are already fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates that pagination is optional without adding any meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already encode, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('all leads in a campaign'), and adds a qualification ('with optional pagination'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_campaign_status or add_lead without ambiguity.

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 says this tool gets leads in a campaign, so the intended use is implied from its name and wording. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings, no exclusions, and no conditions for when not to use it.

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