search_leads

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses one key behavior—always returning associated contacts via ?with=contacts—but fails to mention other traits like pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. The description is informative but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides key details about search types and behavior.

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 no output schema, the description could elaborate on return structure, pagination, or error handling. It covers the core function and a key behavioral note, but remains incomplete for a robust search tool with 5 optional parameters.

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 each parameter well. The description adds high-level context (smart search) but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 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 clearly states it is a robust search for leads in Kommo, specifying supported search methods (exact query, phone, CPF, email, name). It distinguishes itself by noting it always returns associated contacts, which differentiates it from siblings like search_contacts or get_lead.

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 usage for searching leads by various criteria, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_contacts, get_lead) or when not to use it. No exclusions are provided.

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