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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not repeat safety. It adds value by stating the computation matches the home dashboard and includes a security warning about CRM field values being untrusted content. These are behavioral and data-handling traits not present in annotations, enriching the agent's understanding.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core function immediately, and the second adds a critical security note. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned and includes a necessary data-handling caveat. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly; no critical details are 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 input schema already provides a thorough description for workspaceId (coverage 100%), including when it is required and how search may omit it. The description adds nothing about parameters, so it does not exceed the schema baseline. This is acceptable because schema documentation is sufficient.

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 states the tool returns overdue activities and at-risk deals, specifically computed as the home dashboard does. The verb 'Returns' and the resource are explicit, and the tool is distinct from sibling list tools (e.g., list_activities) because it focuses on items needing attention. No ambiguity remains.

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 implies usage for obtaining a prioritized list of overdue/at-risk items but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to. It does not mention exclusions (e.g., for detailed activity lists use list_activities). The context is clear from the name but no explicit guidance is provided.

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