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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value beyond them: it discloses that sync freshness and completeness are included, that removed unrated leads are counted separately, and that certain metrics cannot be derived from counts — preventing a downstream agent from misreading totals.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what the report contains, followed by scoping, caveats and exclusions. Dense but every sentence carries information; the final sentence on unavailable metrics is slightly long but earns its place by preempting a common misread.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not required, and the description still explains the interpretive caveats (separate counting of removed unrated leads, freshness/completeness fields). The only shortfall is that business_id and the relationship to other LSA tools remain unaddressed.

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 load. It does clarify the two date parameters precisely — start inclusive, end exclusive, UTC — which is meaningful semantics absent from the schema. business_id (uuid) receives no explanation, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement — lead counts, types, statuses, ratings and credit counts — scoped to an explicit UTC window. That is far more informative than the title 'get lsa report'. It does not, however, contrast itself with near siblings like get_lsa_account_report or list_lsa_leads, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the scoping language ('for an explicit UTC window') and by the exclusions: financial amounts, signed cases and response-time metrics are unavailable here. That signals when to look elsewhere, but no sibling tool is named and no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing is provided.

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