list_leads

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

Even though annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds valuable context: reads only and costs no credits, requires an API key, returns specific fields (contact, company, enrichment, score), and treats empty page as a normal answer. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Concise yet information-dense: the first sentence front-loads the core function, the second paragraph clarifies usage vs. alternatives, and the third covers behavioral details. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Covers sorting (newest first), paging, search, filtering by job, auth requirements, response contents, and empty-page semantics. Given there is no output schema, the description sufficiently fills the gap for a list 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a use case for job_id ('Narrow to one search job...') and mentions paging/search, but this largely restates schema meanings without substantial new parameter-level detail.

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 it lists leads already saved to the account, newest first, with paging and search. Explicitly distinguishes from search_leads by noting it does NOT find new leads, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use this to work with leads you already have' and contrasts with search_leads, which 'starts a job and costs credits.' Also explains narrowing results with job_id for a specific job.

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