pipedrive_leads_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does very little. It notes the v2 search API as an implementation detail but says nothing about pagination behavior, result shape, matching semantics, or whether searches are eventually consistent, all of which matter for a search endpoint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it is efficient. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but as pure structure it is clean.

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 an 8-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, this one-liner leaves far too much for the agent to infer. It should at minimum describe pagination and what a result contains.

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 only 50% across 8 parameters, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It never mentions limit, cursor, exact_match, fields, person_id, organization_id, or include_fields, leaving half the parameter surface undocumented in both the schema and the prose.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (search leads) plus the backing API version, which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling pipedrive_leads_list and pipedrive_leads_get. However, it does not differentiate the search scope from other *_search siblings (deals_search, persons_search), which a fuller description might address.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., leads_list for browsing vs. this for term matching), and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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