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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral value by disclosing ranking by live comment count ('reachable commenters') and enumerating the returned dimensions such as author, post age, discovering topic, classified deliverable, and status.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs in ranked ordering, returned fields, and filter options without wasted words. Every clause contributes useful selection or invocation 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned, how results are ranked, and available filters. It does not mention default status, pagination, or combining filters, but those gaps are minor given the schema and annotation coverage.

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 50%; status and topic are described in both schema and tool description, so the tool repeats that meaning. The description does not add much about 'limit' or 'workspaceId', though those names are reasonably self-explanatory and 'for a workspace' gives context for workspaceId. Overall it provides some value but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a distinct resource ('discovered lead magnet candidates for a workspace'), and the key distinguishing attributes (ranking by live comment count, returned fields, available filters). This clearly separates it from related tools like campaignstack_list_lead_magnet_creators and campaignstack_get_lead_magnet_run.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: listing lead magnet candidates filtered by status or topic. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope and filter guidance make intended usage obvious.

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