conduyt_get_lead_pool_settings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains matching semantics (EVERY criterion, any-of for tags/sources), edge cases (empty criterion skipped, enabled-with-nothing = disabled), that claims are gated by the same rules, and the auth requirement (settings scope). That is context an agent could not infer from an empty 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the underlying settings keys, then layered semantics. Dense but every clause conveys real behavior; the createdWithinDays parenthetical is the one spot that runs long.

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 no annotations, yet the description covers what is returned (tags resolved names, criteria line), how to interpret it, access requirements, and edge-case behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4; the description goes further by giving meaning to each returned settings field — tagIds any-of, sources any-of, minScore/maxScore bounds, createdWithinDays counting contact creation time and excluding re-imports.

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 ('Read') and a well-defined resource ('the admin-curated lead pool'), and anchors it to concrete settings keys (poolFilter + poolClaimDailyLimit). An agent can immediately tell this is the read counterpart to the sibling update_lead_pool_settings.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read'. The description never says when to call this versus conduyt_update_lead_pool_settings, conduyt_list_pool_filter_sets or conduyt_list_up_for_grabs, nor does it state any prerequisite beyond 'requires the settings scope'.

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