List leads

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value beyond the schema by stating the required `leads:read` scope and calling out cursor pagination. Tis is a read-path tool, and the scope strongly reinforces that, though it does not describe response shape or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: one states the operation and filtering modes, the other states pagination and auth requirement. Every clause earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 moderately simple filtered-list tool, the description covers the core operational facts: resource, filterable fields, pagination, and auth scope. With no output schema, an explicit note about the returned lead shape would be a small bonus, but the tool name and list semantics make it reasonably inferable.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameter meanings. The description adds only a high-level mapping of tag/search to filtering and cursor-paginated to pagination, without drilling into syntax, constraints, or cursor interplay that the schema already covers.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('List leads') and characterizes leads as contacts, then adds distinguishing capabilities: filtering by tag or free-text search and cursor pagination. This adequately separates it from singular get_lead and mutation tools like create_lead/update_lead.

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 gives clear context for when to call this tool – when you need a paginated, filterable list of leads – but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as get_lead for a single record. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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