list_leads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the sort order (newest first) which is genuinely useful, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, what fields are returned, the meaning of the 'status' parameter, whether this is a read-only safe operation (though listing strongly implies it), or whether there are any filter constraints or defaults.

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 a single short sentence with no waste. It's appropriately minimal for what it conveys. Slightly more detail on parameters or return shape could justify additional length, but as written it's efficient.

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 list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. There's no default limit mentioned, no guidance on how 'status' filters results, no indication of what lead fields are returned, and no pagination strategy. The sibling list_tickets likely returns similar-shaped data, so some copying of conventions may be implied, but the description alone doesn't make this tool independently usable without probing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, the description doesn't explain either parameter — it doesn't clarify what values 'status' accepts (e.g., open, won, lost) or how 'limit' interacts with the newest-first ordering. The description adds zero information about parameters beyond the schema, and with 0% coverage this is a notable gap, though the parameter names themselves are fairly self-explanatory.

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 'List CRM leads (newest first)' has a specific verb+resource ('List' 'leads'), specifies the domain (CRM), and notes the sort order. It doesn't distinguish from siblings explicitly, but there's a clear create_lead/update_lead pair that implies this is the read tool for leads, while list_tickets covers a different resource, so purpose is reasonably established though sibling differentiation is implicit.

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 this is the tool for viewing leads given the sibling create_lead/update_lead counterparts, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no note on when list_tickets would be more appropriate. The 'newest first' sort gives some usage context but no exclusion criteria or guidance on status filtering.

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