search_lead

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states only that a search is performed, but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only (e.g., safe to call repeatedly), what happens with multiple matches, error conditions, or any authentication requirements. The description is too minimal to guide safe invocation.

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 sentence of 14 words, very concise and efficient. However, it lacks front-loading of critical aspects (e.g., return type, required fields). It earns a high score for brevity but loses a point for missing structure that could improve scannability.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain how to combine search criteria, what the expected result format is (single lead vs. list), or any constraints. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 baseline is 3. The description enumerates the search fields (email, LinkedIn URL, lead ID, name, company) but adds no new meaning beyond what the property descriptions already provide. It does not clarify how parameters interact (e.g., are they AND or OR, is a minimum required). Thus, the description offers marginal added value.

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 action ('search for a lead') and lists the multiple search criteria (email, LinkedIn URL, lead ID, name, or company). This verb+resource+scope is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_members or get_audience_detail, which have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer search_lead over other look-up tools like get_audience_leads or list_members, nor any context about search behavior (e.g., whether it returns best match or multiple results). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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