leads_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining compact mode's token-cheap fields versus full mode's heavy objects, and by clarifying that this tool does not create or update records.

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 front-loaded with the actions, then mode guidance, then alternative-tool routing. It is dense but every sentence carries useful information for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The description covers the main read paths and key alternatives, but for a 15-parameter tool with very low schema description coverage and no output schema, it leaves important pagination, filtering, and export-specific parameters unexplained. It is adequate for basic routing but incomplete for confident invocation across all actions.

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 only 13% across 15 parameters, so the description must compensate for many undocumented inputs. It explains action and mode meaning well, but does not clarify page, limit, cursor, timeRange, searchTerm, leadFilters, searchField, propertyFilter, groupName, or useAgentLeadsEndpoint, leaving much of the parameter surface ambiguous.

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 states a specific read operation and enumerates the supported actions: list, get, export, and export_filtered. It also distinguishes this tool from leads_write and clients_read, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly says to use mode=full only when complete lead objects are needed, prefers action=get for a single lead, and routes writes to leads_write and client accounts to clients_read. These are clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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