qobrix_stale_leads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the precise staleness logic, default statuses, sorting order, and the effect of since_days. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the 'Find' verb and focus on reading make it inferable.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information: the definition, the sorting rule, and practical examples. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity and absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, defaults, and use cases. It does not describe the returned object structure, but the tool's output as a list of opportunities is reasonably inferred from the name and sibling tools.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds example values (since_days: 7, assigned_to: 'CURRENT_USER') but does not meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter explanations, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the tool's function: finding live opportunities with no recent activity. It provides a precise definition of 'stale' and distinguishes this from generic opportunity listing/searching tools by focusing on inactivity criteria.

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 example use cases (silent leads, aggressive cadence, assigned to current user), which strongly implies when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-stale searches, but the examples and stale definition make the intended usage clear.

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