volkern_list_leads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Returns paginated results,' which is useful for understanding output behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), any rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a list tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences: 'List leads with optional filters. Returns paginated results.' Every word earns its place by covering the core action, scope, and a key behavioral trait (pagination) without any fluff or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and pagination but misses details like response format, error cases, or how filters combine. Without annotations or output schema, more context on behavior and results would improve completeness, making this minimally viable but with clear gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter details including enums for 'estado' and 'canal.' The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying filtering via 'optional filters' without elaborating on parameter interactions or usage examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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's purpose: 'List leads with optional filters.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('leads'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling list tools like 'volkern_list_contacts' or 'volkern_list_deals' beyond the resource type, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites, such as whether it should be used for broad queries versus specific lookups (e.g., compared to 'volkern_get_lead'). There's no mention of when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives, leaving usage context unclear.

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