create_lead_list

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: each call creates a NEW list, names are not deduplicated, no local import occurs, no credits are consumed, and the return value includes the id needed by sync_lead_list. This aligns with idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Every sentence serves a purpose: defining the operation, clarifying non-side-effects, naming the caller prerequisite, explaining non-idempotency, listing requirements, and specifying the return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains compact despite covering several behavioral nuances.

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 simple one-parameter creation tool, the description is complete: it covers prerequisites, side effects, cost, non-idempotency, the relationship to sibling tools, and the exact return value needed downstream. With no output schema, describing the returned ID and its consumer is particularly valuable.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by warning that names are not deduplicated — the same 'name' value produces multiple lists, which is critical for an agent deciding whether to reuse a name. It slightly exceeds the schema-only baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+state ('Create a new, empty lead list in Hunter.io') and clarifies what the tool does NOT do (populate the list, import anything). It also differentiates from the sibling sync_lead_list explicitly, making the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Call list_lead_lists first' and notes that sync_lead_list handles actual importing. It also states prerequisites (API key, connected account), cost implications, and the non-deduplication behavior, which tells the agent when to call this repeatedly vs. when to use alternatives.

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