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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: records are returned sorted newest first with status and createdAt metadata. No contradiction exists between the text and annotations.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the most useful cross-reference. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list operation with two parameters, the description covers what is returned, the ordering, and how to find the required agent ID. Since there is no output schema, it briefly names the return content; a fuller lead-record shape could be added, but the current level is adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the required agentId by explaining it references a signal agent's associated lead list and by telling the agent how to obtain the ID. The optional limit parameter is not described, but its name plus schema default/min/max make it self-evident.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List leads discovered by a signal agent from its associated lead list.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like campaignstack_list_signal_agents (which lists agents) and campaignstack_list_lead_signals (which lists signals, not lead records).

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?

It gives a concrete usage pointer: 'Use campaignstack_list_signal_agents to find agent IDs,' which tells the agent how to satisfy the required agentId parameter. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative lead-list tools, but the intended context is clear.

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