list_unread_leads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides meaningful detail: sorted by recency, one row per unread conversation, and includes the specific fields returned. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' and 'Returns,' and no side effects are suggested.

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 well-structured. The first sentence states the action, the second explains the return format and use case. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters), has an output schema, and the description fully covers the output fields and intended usage. It provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional clarification.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema covers everything trivially. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no contradictory or missing parameter information.

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 states the action: 'List every influencer with an unread reply in the inbox, sorted by recency.' It identifies a specific resource (influencer inbox leads) and a distinctive scope (unread replies), differentiating it from sibling tools like crm_list_unread_messages.

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 explicit usage context: 'Useful for daily prioritisation: which leads should I respond to right now?' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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