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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: pricing is available only while nothing is locked, and the rest is re-priced after a lock resolves, plus it discloses that watchdog conclusions and connected sources are part of the 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 front-loaded with 'Funnel health right now' and then lists the reported areas efficiently. It is a single long sentence with a parenthetical caveat, but every clause contributes useful scope or behavior 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 zero-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the main returned categories, the dynamic pricing caveat, and the intended entry-point role. Nothing essential for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The schema is empty and the description correctly avoids inventing parameters; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriate here.

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 clearly identifies the resource as an aggregate 'Funnel health right now' and enumerates what it reports: constraint lock/re-check state, dollar-per-month step pricing, watchdog conclusions, and connected sources. It is distinguishable as an overview and entry point, though it does not explicitly name or contrast specific sibling tools.

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?

'Start here' gives clear guidance that this is the first call for an overall funnel status check. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_current_constraint or get_alert, but the entry-point instruction is strong enough to guide invocation.

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