sales_search_leads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the requirement for a Sales Navigator subscription, which is useful context about prerequisites. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, whether it's a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, or any potential side effects. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose and a key prerequisite. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a prerequisite, but doesn't provide enough context about behavior, output, or usage compared to siblings. For a search tool with many parameters and no structured output documentation, more detail would be helpful to ensure the agent can use it correctly.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

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 searches for leads using LinkedIn Sales Navigator, which is a specific verb (search) and resource (leads). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_lead_lists' or 'get_saved_leads' by focusing on search rather than retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_people' or 'sales_search_accounts' which are similar search operations.

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 mentions that it requires a Sales Navigator subscription, which provides some context for when to use (i.e., when that subscription is active). However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like 'search_people' or 'sales_search_accounts', nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites beyond the subscription.

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