Search Leads

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It contributes domain knowledge (the complete set of valid state values, which is not in the schema), but omits whether this is a bounded read, how many results come back by default, and whether state and tag are combined with AND or OR — meaningful gaps for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and the state enumeration, and the two example scenarios are short. The 'fastest way to find everyone worth a human reply today' phrasing leans promotional, but it earns its place as usage guidance.

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 return values need not be described. However, for a read-only search with four undocumented parameters, the definition leaves the filter-combination semantics and limit behavior unexplained, leaving the agent to guess about result volume and narrowing logic.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does document the state parameter's value domain and confirms tag filtering, but says nothing about list_id (required), limit (default 50, pagination behavior), or how state and tag interact. Partial compensation at best.

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 specific verb (search) and the two filter axes (state or tag) applied to leads in a list, and enumerates all valid state values, which is exactly what an agent needs to pick this over get_lead or list_lead_lists. It never explicitly says the results are leads or scopes the list_id resource, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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?

Gives two concrete when-to-use scenarios: state="replied" to surface people worth a human reply, and not_accepted after 14 days to gauge connection-note performance. That is real contextual routing, but it never names an alternative tool (e.g., get_lead for a single record) or states when NOT to use this search.

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