Lead Entry API: list operations (divisions)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds only that it hits GET /api/v1/operations and returns 'the endpoint's JSON response', with no detail on volume, pagination, or what 'divisions' means.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the title is repeated verbatim and 'Verified route' / 'Returns the endpoint's JSON response' are boilerplate that consumes half the text without adding usable information.

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?

With no output schema and a nested-object parameter (extra_query), the description should explain what the endpoint returns and how to shape filters. Instead it leaves both to the schema and says only that JSON comes back — which also conflicts with the default markdown response_format.

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 extra_query and response_format are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description contributes nothing further about either parameter.

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?

It names a specific resource action ('list operations (divisions)') and gives the underlying GET route, so an agent can tell it fetches data. However, it never distinguishes this from the very similarly named sibling singleops_read_list_operations, and the parenthetical '(divisions)' is the only hint at scope.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this over singleops_read_list_operations or singleops_call_route, and no prerequisites or filters mentioned. 'Verified route' is metadata about tool generation, not usage guidance.

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