list_leads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions '[tier: readonly-owner]' suggesting read-only ownership scope, which is somewhat useful, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, what the response contains, sorting, or whether results are limited by ownership scope beyond the cryptic tier tag. For a list tool with zero annotations, this is thin.

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 at a single sentence plus the HTTP mapping tag. It's front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause. The '[tier: readonly-owner]' tag is concise but cryptic. No wasted sentences, though the tier notation is somewhat opaque.

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?

No output schema and zero annotation coverage place high demand on the description, which responds with only one sentence. It doesn't describe pagination, response shape, filter behaviors, or access constraints. For a 5-parameter list tool with rich siblings (list_jobs, list_estimates), a competing read tool, and no structured safety annotations, this is materially under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only says 'optional filters' without explaining any specific parameter (status, customer_id, lead_source_id, page, page_size). None of the filter semantics, value formats, or relationships (e.g., customer_id filters by owning customer) are clarified. The 5 parameters are essentially undocumented by the description.

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 'List prospective-work leads with optional filters' — a clear verb+resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like list_jobs, list_estimates, or list_invoices, all of which are parallel list tools. 'Maps to GET /leads' is technical detail but not differentiating guidance.

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?

It says 'with optional filters' implying the parameters are all optional, and '[tier: readonly-owner]' hints at access level, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives. No exclusions or naming of sibling tools for comparison when to prefer a different list.

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