leads_get_sources

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

The description details behavioral traits: sources are pre-defined and immutable, leads created via API get 'API' source assigned automatically, results are heavily cached (24 hours). No annotations are provided, but the description fully compensates by disclosing these critical behaviors.

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 well-structured with bullet points and sections, making it easy to scan. While slightly long, every sentence serves a purpose: listing sources, explaining caching, and offering use cases. It could be pared down slightly, but it remains efficient.

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?

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool returns (list of source names), immutability, default assignment, caching, and example use cases. It is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the description does not need to explain any. The description adds value by listing the actual source values (Manually created, Deal, etc.), which is more informative than the empty schema alone.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all lead sources', and explains what lead sources are and where they come from. It distinguishes itself from siblings like leads_get (which gets a specific lead) and leads_get_labels (which gets labels) by focusing solely on the fixed list of source origins.

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 provides explicit use cases (list all sources, reporting, display to users) and important workflow tips (sources are fixed, heavily cached, list may expand). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear and sufficient for an agent to decide.

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