pipedrive_list_leads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds the key behavioral constraint that only non-archived leads are returned, which is not in annotations. No contradictions. Some additional behavior (e.g., pagination) is implied by params but not described.

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?

Single sentence, 15 words, front-loaded with key information. No waste. Efficiently conveys purpose and scope.

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 has 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description plus annotations provide sufficient context for safe usage. Lacks mention of return format or pagination behavior, but these are standard for list tools and somewhat inferred from params.

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The tool description restates the filtering purpose but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List'), resource ('leads'), scope ('active (non-archived)'), and optional filtering dimensions. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like pipedrive_search_leads and pipedrive_list_archived_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 implicitly indicates use for listing active leads with filters but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternative tools (e.g., search tools for text queries) or prerequisites. No when-not-to-use or alternative references.

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