get_web_harvest_leads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what information is returned but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'get'), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the limit parameter), error conditions, or what happens when no leads exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states the core function, the second details the return information. There's no wasted text, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from return details.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and what information it returns, but lacks important context: no output format details, no error handling information, no guidance on when to use versus siblings, and incomplete behavioral transparency. For a data retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should do more to explain what 'detailed information' actually means in practice.

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 fully documents both parameters (status with enum values and limit with default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples, or clarify semantics. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param info in the description.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the leads collected by your web harvest agent' specifies the verb (get) and resource (leads from web harvest agent). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_web_harvest_status' (which likely returns status info) and 'run_web_harvest' (which initiates harvesting), but doesn't explicitly differentiate them. The description is specific about what information is returned (company names, websites, contact details, social media profiles).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use it instead of 'get_web_harvest_status' or 'run_web_harvest', nor does it provide context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a harvest must be completed first). The only implied usage is retrieving leads, but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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