List leads

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral constraints: 'Max 250 per page' and 'Rate limit 7 req/s.' These disclose pagination limits and rate limiting, which are not available in annotations or schema. The mention of 'optional embedded entities' also gives insight into response customization.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List leads') and packs in three key aspects (pagination, filters, embedded entities) plus two critical constraints (max 250 per page, rate limit 7 req/s). There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 17 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It mentions pagination, filtering, embedded entities, and rate limits—enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. However, it could briefly note that the response is a paginated list of leads (though the name/title imply this) and that filters are optional. The detailed schema compensates for omitted parameter specifics.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 17 parameters, so the description does not need to add much. The description references 'pagination, filters and optional embedded entities' at a high level, but it does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'List leads with pagination, filters and optional embedded entities,' which is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like kommo_leads_get (single lead) and kommo_leads_search (search). The mention of pagination and filters clarifies the scope of the collection operation.

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 context (listing leads with pagination/filters) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives such as 'use kommo_leads_get for a single lead' or 'use kommo_leads_search for keyword search.' Thus, usage guidance is primarily implied by the tool name and description.

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