List leads

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds the ordering behavior (newest-first). However, it does not disclose response structure, pagination, or any limitations, which would be helpful for a list tool with no output schema.

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 conveys all essential information without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and the presence of readOnly annotations, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It could be improved by mentioning the required project parameter and response format, but it is largely complete for a list tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by status and company but does not mention the required 'project' parameter, leaving ambiguity about its role. The description partially covers parameter semantics but misses crucial information.

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 identifies the action (list), resource (leads), ordering (newest-first), and optional filters (status and company). It distinguishes from other lead-related sibling tools like add_lead, set_lead_status, and leads_map.

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 states when to use the tool (to list leads with optional filters) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it (e.g., for mapping use leads_map). The context is adequate but lacks direct sibling comparisons.

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