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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds mild context by noting records are 'private' and project-scoped, but otherwise adds no behavioral disclosure such as result limits or visibility rules.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the read-only guarantee. No wasted words; the information density is high.

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 filtered read with an output schema and safety annotations, the description provides enough to make a safe first call, but it omits details about how query/status/limit behave. 'selected project' and 'private' give helpful context, yet the overall completeness is only 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only indirectly covers project_id via 'selected project' and says nothing about query, status, or limit semantics, leaving the agent to guess how filtering works. This is a significant gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('private CRM lead records'), and a scoping condition ('in the selected project'), making its purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crm.search_contacts by explicitly targeting leads, and the 'without changing them' clause separates it from mutating CRM operations.

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 read-only clause and 'selected project' scope imply when the tool should be used, and the presence of siblings like crm.get_lead and crm.search_contacts suggests a search-vs-fetch distinction. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it.

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