List Leads

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool lists (a read operation) and is paginated, but does not specify return structure, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other side effects. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a helpful docs link. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 listing tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but sparse. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., an array of lead objects) or how search filters are applied, relying on the docs link. The schema covers parameters, but the return format and search behavior are ambiguous.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond hinting at search via 'search', which is also covered by the extra_query parameter. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('List/search') and the resource ('leads'), and notes pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lead (single lead), create_lead, and convert_lead, which perform different operations.

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 use for listing or searching leads with pagination, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_lead for individual leads or exclude any use cases, so it is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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