list_leads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'filters and pagination' which gives basic behavioral context, but doesn't disclose important traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, 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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose ('List leads') followed by key capabilities ('with filters and pagination'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy 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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata. For a filtering and pagination tool that likely returns complex lead data, the description should provide more context about return format, error handling, or usage examples to help an agent understand what to expect.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'filters and pagination' which aligns with parameters like 'campaign_id', 'list_id', 'status' (filters) and 'starting_after' (pagination). However, it doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 action ('List') and resource ('leads'), and mentions filtering and pagination capabilities. It distinguishes from other lead-related tools like 'create_lead' or 'update_lead' by focusing on retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_lead_lists' which might be a sibling tool for listing lead collections rather than individual leads.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'list_lead_lists' (for listing lead collections) and 'get_campaign' (for retrieving specific campaigns), there's no indication of when this filtered lead listing is preferred over other listing or retrieval methods. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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