list_leads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. The description states it lists leads 'for the authenticated user,' implying this is a read-only operation, and mentions pagination support. However, it doesn't clarify what a 'saved lead' is, how search interacts with pagination, sorting behavior, or what the response shape looks like without an output schema.

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 effectively communicates the core purpose and key features. It front-loads the primary function (listing saved leads) and supplements with capability details. No wasted words, though it could add a sentence on usage contrast.

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?

This is a read operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description doesn't disclose behavior around pagination edge cases, default sorting, what constitutes a 'saved' lead, rate limits, or how many results can be expected. For a data-returning tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, more behavioral context is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds the search scope ('by name, email, or company') which marginally complements the schema's generic 'search term' description, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries the weight.

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 lists saved leads for the authenticated user, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('saved leads'). It mentions pagination and search capabilities, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_leads which targets broader search functionality. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast against search_leads or other sibling tools.

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 usage for browsing saved leads with pagination and search, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. With sibling tools like search_leads and enrich_lead, the description could clarify when to use list_leads versus search_leads, but leaves this implicit.

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