List leads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is carried. The description adds the meaningful 'active leads' scoping (records are filtered, not everything) and enumerates returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps or ordering, which matters for a paged list.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before alternatives. The opening fragment 'Sales leads with contact details, stage and quality score' partially pre-states the second sentence, a minor redundancy, but nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned fields and stage values, and annotations cover the safety profile. Completeness would be higher if it described pagination behavior given the cursor parameter and 100-item cap.

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 67%; cursor and search are already documented in the schema and the description's 'search by name, company, email or phone' largely restates the search property. The limit parameter (default 25, max 100) has no description text and the description does not compensate for it, so this is baseline territory.

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 and resource (reads active leads) and enumerates the returned fields, including the stage vocabulary and 1-5 quality scale. It also explicitly separates the tool from list_opportunities, so an agent can route between leads and deals without opening either schema.

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 gives concrete search criteria (name, company, email or phone) and names the alternative for deal data ('Opportunities ... are list_opportunities'). It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g. to create or qualify a lead, which the siblings create_lead/update_* cover), so the exclusion set is implied rather than stated.

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