marketsharp_lead_sources_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds only that results are scoped to "the company's" sources and that there is a primary/secondary hierarchy; it says nothing about default exclusion of inactive sources, ordering, pagination, or whether a primary with no children returns an empty list. Useful but thin beyond the 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary case and appends the conditional variant. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, nothing to trim.

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 two-optional-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes adequately. The gap is only in return-shape expectations (flat list vs nested, effect of includeInactive defaults), which is minor given there is no output schema to lean on.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description does add the conceptual link that primaryLeadSourceId switches the tool from a top-level listing to a nested listing, which clarifies intent beyond the schema's bare phrasing, but offers no format, ID prefix, or depth details.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ("List the company's primary lead sources") and names both operating modes, so the agent knows exactly what is enumerated. It does not name any sibling tool, but the resource is distinct enough from the other *_list tools (activity types, appointments, contacts) that confusion is unlikely.

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 two modes are clearly delineated: omit primaryLeadSourceId for primary sources, supply it to get that source's secondary sources. What is missing is any explicit when-not guidance, such as how this differs from product interests or inquiry statuses lists, but the mode selection itself is unambiguous.

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