hcp_list_leads

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond those annotations: auto-pagination unless an explicit page is provided. It does not disclose defaults, ordering, or limits, but for a safe read operation the added pagination context is useful enough for a 4.

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: two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the pagination behavior is stated in a compact, information-dense way.

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 tool's low parameter count, presence of an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the main behavior. Still, it leaves important gaps: page_size is entirely unexplained, the page parameter's semantics are only partially inferred, and there is no mention of filtering, result limits, or default page size. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It only clarifies the role of 'page' by saying auto-pagination stops when an explicit page is set; it never explains 'page_size,' default values, indexing, or valid ranges. This is insufficient compensation for the complete absence of 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 operation as 'List leads,' which is a specific verb-resource pairing and accurately conveys what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling list tools such as hcp_list_lead_sources or hcp_list_customers, nor does it define the scope of 'leads,' so it misses the differentiation required for a 5.

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 only usage guidance is the auto-pagination rule: omit page to get automatic pagination, or set page for an explicit page. This implies when each pagination mode might be used, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over hcp_create_lead, hcp_get_* tools, or other list tools.

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