crm_list_leads

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavior. It explains formatting rules (render as Markdown table, show 'sans site' based on has_website) and empty-result handling, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or handles errors. This adds some transparency but not comprehensive behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a bulleted list of presentation rules. It is well-structured, though the bullet points focus on output formatting rather than tool usage, keeping it efficient.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers presentation but not parameter details, error handling, or prerequisites. The lack of information about the 'limit' parameter and potential side effects makes it insufficient for full comprehension.

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 0%, and the description only mentions three of the four parameters (group_id, with_email, status) as optional filters, without explaining valid values or effects. The 'limit' parameter is completely omitted. The description provides partial meaning but leaves significant gaps, especially for limit.

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 function: 'List CRM leads as a table' with optional filters (group_id, with_email, status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like crm_summary or crm_list_groups by explicitly focusing on listing 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?

The description implies when to use it (to list leads) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention when to prefer crm_summary or other list tools, leaving the user to infer based on the name.

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