search_leads

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It is silent on key aspects: whether the search is read-only, how pagination works (despite limit/offset params), timeout behavior, and response structure. The agent is left guessing about side effects and constraints.

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 very concise (8 words), but for a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, it is overly sparse. Important context like pagination or output format is omitted, making it less useful despite brevity.

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?

Despite exhaustive schema coverage, the description fails to explain how to chain filters, handle pagination, or interpret results. No output schema exists, and the description does not compensate. The tool's complexity (11 params) demands more explanatory context.

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%, so the schema provides adequate meaning for all 11 parameters. The description adds only the phrase 'ICP filters', which loosely groups the filters but adds no new semantic value beyond what the parameter descriptions offer.

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 clear verb ('Search') and resource ('leads') with a filtering criterion ('by ICP filters'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_companies' or 'get_lead_by_url', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_companies' for company-level search, 'get_lead_by_url' for single lead lookup). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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