get_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. The verb "Get" implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about result volume, pagination, ordering, permission requirements, or what is returned.

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 a single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Its brevity is the only virtue, however, since it omits information an agent would need rather than trimming waste.

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 read tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the remaining obligations are light, yet the description omits any usage routing, filtering behavior, or result characteristics. With no annotations to lean on, it leaves meaningful gaps for an agent choosing among six retrieval siblings.

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% for the single ownerId parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description's generic "optional filters" adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

"Get leads with optional filters" names a clear verb (get) and resource (leads), so the basic purpose is recoverable, but it is close to a restatement of the tool name and adds only a generic mention of filters. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_deals or get_activities beyond the noun.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the six sibling retrieval tools, nor any stated preconditions. "With optional filters" hints that narrowing is possible but does not say when filtering is warranted or what happens if no ownerId is supplied.

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