List leads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'optionally searching by text', which is a behavioral feature, but it largely restates the purpose and does not disclose additional traits like pagination behavior or response format. The bar is lower given annotations, yet the description contributes minimal extra context.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. It efficiently communicates the core function without redundancy, leaving the schema to handle parameter details.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the tool is a simple list operation with well-documented parameters. The description, combined with the schema, gives the agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't explain the return structure, but for a list tool with pagination parameters, the schema and name imply an array of leads. This is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, including limit, offset, search, and brand_id. The description's phrase 'optionally searching by text' echoes the search parameter but adds no new meaning. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description provides no further semantics.

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 'List sales leads/prospects', combining a specific verb ('List') with a defined resource ('sales leads/prospects'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_lead or update_lead by focusing on listing, and clarifies the resource type, avoiding ambiguity with other list tools such as list_clients or list_contracts.

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 clear context: this tool is for listing sales leads, optionally filtered by text. It implies use when the agent needs to retrieve leads, not create or modify them. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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