Find leads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that search is free-text over the lead set with an optional channel narrowing, and says nothing about result size, ordering, or no-match behavior. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, plus a concrete call example. Nothing is padded, though the example slightly restates the query/channel semantics already implied by the first sentence.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and a read-only lookup tool does not require permission or side-effect disclosure. The definition is complete for its complexity; only the missing sibling disambiguation keeps it from a 5.

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 all five parameters are documented in the schema and baseline is 3. The example ('maria instagram' matching Maria's Instagram lead) usefully illustrates that the query spans both name and handle and can combine with channel, but it does not extend beyond what the schema already declares.

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 (search the coach's leads) and adds scope: free-text query plus optional channel filter. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like luca_leads_list or luca_leads_get, so an agent still has to infer which lead-lookup tool to pick.

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?

Gives real workflow context ('locate a lead before drafting, booking, or flagging'), which tells the agent when in a sequence to reach for it. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. luca_leads_list) or stating exclusions, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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