crm_search_leads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Search' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't clarify if this is paginated, has rate limits, requires specific permissions, or what the output format looks like. It mentions 'lead-specific filters' but doesn't explain what makes them specific to leads versus other resources. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While it may be too brief for adequate tool understanding, it achieves perfect conciseness within its limited scope.

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 search tool with 5 parameters (one required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the complex filtering system, pagination behavior, return format, or how this differs from other search/list tools. The minimal description leaves critical gaps for proper tool usage.

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 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description mentions 'lead-specific filters' which loosely relates to the 'filterGroups' parameter, but doesn't explain any of the other parameters (after, limit, properties, sorts) or provide guidance on how to construct filter groups. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Search leads with lead-specific filters' states the verb ('search') and resource ('leads'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it's vague about what 'lead-specific filters' means and doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'crm_search_contacts' or 'crm_search_companies' beyond the resource type. It doesn't specify whether this searches all leads or has specific scope limitations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'crm_get_lead' (single lead retrieval), 'crm_list_objects' (generic listing), and other search tools for different resources, there's no indication of when this search tool is preferable. No prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to similar tools are mentioned.

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