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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses pagination behavior, the need to follow nextCursor, coverage of both shared and workspace-private leads, the structure of platform presence under `profiles`, and deprecation of top-level linkedInUrl. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: scope, pagination, filter omission, lead visibility, response structure, legacy alias, and downstream usage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the important return aspects needed to use the tool correctly: pagination via nextCursor, the profiles key, the legacy alias, and leadId handoff to other tools. For a read-only search tool with five optional parameters, this is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly without further assumptions.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates by explaining that query accepts name/email/LinkedIn URL, that company searching is supported, and that omitting query and companyId pages through all leads. It also explains how cursor relates to pagination and how leadId feeds downstream tools, adding meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Search'), a clear resource ('leads'), and a bounded scope ('in a workspace'), and enumerates the searchable fields: name, email, LinkedIn URL, or company. This unambiguously distinguishes it from other list/search siblings such as campaignstack_list_leads_at_node or campaignstack_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 gives concrete usage patterns: how to page with nextCursor, how to page through every lead by omitting query and companyId, and how to use the returned leadId with sibling tools. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over other lead-related tools or name exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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