list_unsorted

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It makes clear the returned set is limited to unsorted leads, but it does not explicitly state that listing is read-only or has no side effects, nor does it mention ordering or pagination behavior. The verb 'list' implies safety, but the absence of annotations leaves some burden unmet.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the two clarifications that matter: the source of the leads and their pending state. There is no redundant wording or repetition of schema information.

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?

The description is adequate for a zero-required-param list tool: it identifies the resource, the filter (unsorted), and the reason (accept/decline). Without an output schema, it leaves the exact response shape unstated, and it could have pointed to accept_unsorted as the follow-up step, but these are minor gaps.

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?

All three parameters (page, limit, pipeline_id) are fully described in the input schema, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no semantic detail about how filtering or pagination interacts with the unsorted status, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List incoming unsorted leads,' and immediately characterizes the subset: leads from forms/email parsing that await accept/decline. This differentiates it from sibling list_leads (all leads) and accept_unsorted (acting on them). There is no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 phrase 'that need to be accepted or declined' gives clear context for when to call this tool: when reviewing the unsorted queue before accept_unsorted. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended use case is obvious.

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