Get a lead search page

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: the tool returns either job status or a paginated page, jobToken must be kept private, and cursor must be passed back unchanged. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 short sentences front-load the core purpose and then give the two essential operational cautions. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 an output schema present, annotations providing the safety profile, and full parameter documentation, the description supplies the missing high-level semantics: status/page duality, opaque cursor chaining, and token privacy. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already documents id provenance, view behavior, limit bounds, cursor opacity, and jobToken privacy. The description's 'keep jobToken private' and 'pass nextCursor back unchanged' largely echo schema text, with only the 'unchanged' nuance adding slight extra meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('job status or one cursor-paginated result page'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_lead_search, refine_lead_search, retry_lead_search, and cancel_lead_search, which create, modify, or cancel jobs rather than read results.

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 clearly frames the tool as a retrieval and pagination operation, and the instruction to pass nextCursor back unchanged gives concrete usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool set makes the retrieval-versus-creation contrast obvious.

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