swapcard_get_my_leads

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The word 'get' implies a read, but it is not explicit, and there is no disclosure of any potential side effects or limitations.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential information without any redundant or verbose language. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (two string parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficient to understand the basic operation. It mentions what it returns (leads) and the scope (exhibitor and event). However, it does not elaborate on the response structure or any additional context, but this is acceptable for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 description clarifies that eventId and exhibitorId are identifiers for the event and exhibitor, respectively, which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide details on expected formats, examples, or whether they are required in a specific context, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 function: retrieving leads (scanned contacts) for a specific exhibitor and event. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('leads'), and the context of exhibitor and event distinguishes it from other tools in the set.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any usage conditions. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on scenarios where this tool is preferred or not, which is a gap for a tool with many siblings.

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