list_leads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reasonably implies a read-only list/search operation and adds useful context by saying the 'with' parameter embeds contacts or loss reasons. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, response format, or any caveats such as rate limits or required permissions.

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 two sentences long and every sentence earns its place: the first establishes the core action and resource, the second summarizes key capabilities. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and avoids repeating obvious schema 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?

For a filtered-list tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it names the core operation, available filters, and the embedding option. The main gap is the lack of an output schema means the description could have briefly noted the response shape, but the tool's purpose and schema are sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 already provides complete descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only minor reinforcement—for example, it highlights 'with' for embedding contacts or loss reasons—but does not meaningfully extend what the schema already states about parameter 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 uses a specific verb ('Search and list') with a clear resource ('deals (leads) in amoCRM') and names concrete behaviors: filtering by pipeline, statuses, and full-text search. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_lead or list_pipelines by indicating it lists multiple leads with optional embedded relations.

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 clearly communicates what the tool does and what filtering/embedding options are available, which implies it should be used for broad lead listing/searching. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over get_lead, search, or list_contacts, and provides no exclusion guidance for alternatives.

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