List Lead Lists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses sort order ('newest first') and the returned fields (id, name, lead count, source type, creation date), which is real added context. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior despite a limit parameter with a default of 25, nor about permissions or truncation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the scope/sort constraint is front-loaded before the return-field summary. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so enumerating return fields is technically redundant, and the description omits the one thing the schema cannot convey: how the limit parameter governs pagination. For a simple read-only list tool the description is nearly sufficient, but the parameter gap keeps it from being complete.

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 single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema only supplies a name and default of 25. The description never mentions limit, pagination, maximum page size, or how to retrieve subsequent pages, leaving the one parameter effectively undocumented.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List the lead lists') and adds scope ('in this workspace') plus an ordering guarantee ('newest first'). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_lead_list (singular), but the plural 'lists' vs. singular naming makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_lead_list for a single list or search_leads for filtered results. The agent must infer that this is the unfiltered enumeration tool.

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