list-stl-leads

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a read operation. The description adds the GET method and the stl:read scope, which provide some useful context about auth requirements, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as response shape, pagination behavior, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already covers.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then provides the endpoint and scope with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it is easy to scan.

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 simple list endpoint with fully documented optional parameters, read-only annotation, and no nested objects, the description plus schema is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that this returns a paginated list, but the page/itemsPerPage parameters already imply that.

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 q, page, and itemsPerPage with meanings and defaults. The description adds no further parameter-specific information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('Speed to Lead leads'), and includes the exact endpoint and required scope. This clearly distinguishes it from singular sibling tools like get-stl-lead and from list-crm-leads by naming the Speed to Lead domain.

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 a collection-listing use case through the word 'List' and the GET endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like get-stl-lead or delete-stl-lead. No exclusions or alternative routing guidance is provided.

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