direct_list_leads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that form data is PII-gated behind include_data=true, which an agent could not infer from annotations or schema defaults (include_data defaults to false). It does not mention pagination behavior or result size limits.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short read-only assertion; the PII caveat is front-loaded alongside the filter. 'Read-only' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and is the only non-earning clause.

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?

Every required element for a correct call is present: the filter input, the PII gate, and the read-only nature. An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the only real gap is pagination/limit guidance for a tool that defaults to limit=500.

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 carry the burden. It does explain turbo_page_ids (filter key) and, crucially, why include_data matters (PII exposure), but limit and offset — both with defaults — get no explanation of range, ordering, or pagination semantics.

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?

Names a specific resource (Turbo page leads) and the filter dimension (TurboPageIds), which separates it from the adjacent direct_list_turbo_pages. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling as an alternative, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 clause 'form data (PII) only with include_data=true' tells the agent when the sensitive mode applies, which is real conditional guidance. However, there is no when-to-use vs when-not-to-use framing against siblings such as direct_list_turbo_pages, so usage remains implied.

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