List Leads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Read-only' is redundant. However, it adds non-annotation context: data source ('public site') and ordering ('newest first'). This goes beyond what annotations provide, earning a 4 rather than a 3.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Read', and contains absolutely no fluff. Every word serves a purpose: the resource type, source, ordering, and read-only nature. It is a model of concise structure.

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 simple read-only list tool with zero parameters and rich annotations, this description is fully adequate. It does not have an output schema, but the description's mention of resource type and ordering is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. There is no missing critical information.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed since there are no parameters to describe. It implicitly suggests an ordering behavior that any result list will follow.

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 verb 'Read', the resource 'inquiry and newsletter leads captured by the public site', and ordering 'newest first'. This distinguishes it from sibling list tools (e.g., list_events, list_episodes) by explicitly specifying the lead type and source.

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 usage context (public site leads) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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