get_audience_leads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'pagination', which hints at iterative retrieval behavior, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has any rate limits. A 3 is appropriate because the description adds some value (pagination) but leaves behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects unspecified.

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 very short (6 words) and front-loaded with the core action. It is concise but lacks a sentence on usage context or exclusions. Still, it earns its place without fluff.

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 that there is no output schema, the description could be improved by indicating what fields are returned or whether the response is paginated in a standard way. The complexity is moderate (3 params, all simple), but the omission of return structure lowers completeness.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 'List leads in a specific audience with pagination' clearly states the verb (list), resource (leads), scope (in a specific audience), and feature (pagination). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_members' and 'list_audiences' by specifying 'leads' and 'audience'. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the exclusion of other filtering or ordering options.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving leads from a given audience, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'search_lead' (which likely searches across audiences) or 'get_audience_detail' (which might return audience metadata). No 'when-not' or alternative tool mentions are given.

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