List leaders

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses that only 'published' profiles are returned and that email/phone are redacted unless include_contact_details is set. It omits any mention of pagination or result ordering, which the max_results parameter makes relevant.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the resource definition plus returned fields are front-loaded before the redaction caveat. Efficient, though the parenthetical definition is slightly dense.

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 field enumeration is necessary and present, and the redaction rule is disclosed. The remaining gap is max_results semantics (maximum 500, default 100, whether results are paginated), which an agent would want before calling.

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 50%: include_contact_details is already described in the schema, and the description's statement about it repeats that effect (with the added detail that bios are un-redacted). max_results is undocumented in both the schema and the description, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the resource ('Leaders') and defines it parenthetically as published admin profiles, then enumerates the returned fields (name, job title, location, bio, website, social links). That is specific but stops short of an explicit verb such as 'list all'; it is clear largely because the title and no competing sibling tool exist for leaders.

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 never says when to call this tool, what context it applies to, or what alternatives exist. The only conditional information ('contact email and phone are only returned with include_contact_details') is a parameter effect, not usage guidance.

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