Get Leads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that. Beyond annotations, the description/schema notes important behavioral traits: tags/stages match on ANY, phone matches trailing digits and only finds leads with an email, and updatedFromDate enables incremental sync (unlike join-date filters). These add valuable context beyond the read-only hint.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and filters, followed by use cases. Every phrase earns its place, with no redundancy or 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 11 parameters, no required params, and no output schema, the description covers the essential use cases and leaves param details to the schema (which is exhaustive). It doesn't explicitly mention pagination or filter combination, but the schema handles pagination via pageId/pageSize, making the description adequate for a read-only search tool.

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%, with rich per-parameter details (max limits, examples, matching semantics). The description only summarizes filter types ('email, phone, tag, stage, join date, last-updated') without adding new meaning. This is exactly the baseline 3 case where the schema carries the weight.

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 and retrieve leads from Hyros'), names the specific resource (leads), and enumerates the filter dimensions (email, phone, tag, stage, join date, last-updated). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hyros_get_lead_journey, which focuses on a lead's journey rather than search/retrieval.

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 concrete usage context: 'Use this to find customers, check their tags and current funnel stage, and sync changes into another system.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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