search_leads_by_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful scope ('across campaigns/lists') and expected output ('who is this and which campaign(s) are they in'), and 'Find' implies a non-mutating read. However, it does not disclose whether matching is exect/partial/case-insensitive, whether multiple matches are possible, or the result shape.

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?

One sentence with the action and scope front-loaded, followed by a short explanatory clause that tells an agent what to expect. Every part earns its place, and nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives sufficient context to select and invoke the tool: the email input, the search scope, and the conceptual return. It could be more complete with exact-match behavior and result formatting, but the tool's simplicity makes those non-blocking.

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 schema provides only a required email string with zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the email is the search key and that matching happens across campaigns/lists, adding purpose beyond the parameter name. It doesn't specify format or validation, but for a single-string email parameter this is not a significant gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find leads matching an email', explicitly scoped 'across campaigns/lists', and clarifies the output intent as lead identity plus their campaign(s). This distinguishes it from broader lead tools like list_leads or get_lead by centering the search on email and campaign context.

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 implies the usage scenario—use it when you have an email and want to identify the lead and their campaigns—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over list_leads/get_lead or any when-not conditions. No alternatives are named.

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