list_leads

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — results are paged and default to newest-first ordering — but says nothing about the read-only nature of the call, the page/pageSize relationship, the 200-item pageSize ceiling, or the return shape.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and no filler. Minor awkwardness in "List leads Paged" capitalization, but every clause carries 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?

For a 10-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains pagination bounds (page up to 100000, pageSize 10–200) or what a returned lead record looks like. It is adequate to start calling the tool but leaves meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is only 20%, so the description must compensate. It maps conceptually to six parameters (listId, labelId, status, verify, esp, search) and implies the sort default via "newest first," but leaves dir, page, and pageSize entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List leads") plus the default ordering and pagination behavior, which is more than a bare restatement of the name. It is distinguishable from sibling list_lead_lists and list_threads by resource, though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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 enumerates the available filter dimensions, which implicitly tells the agent this is the retrieval tool for lead browsing. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings (e.g., list_lead_lists for list metadata, import_leads for writes) and states no exclusions or prerequisites.

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