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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: results are computed the same way the home dashboard computes them (an aggregate, not a raw query), and it explicitly warns that CRM field values are untrusted user content to be treated as data, not instructions — a meaningful security caveat not available from any structured field.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the return contents, followed by the untrusted-content warning. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states what is returned (overdue activities, at-risk deals) and how they are derived. It leaves unspecified the exact shape/fields of the result, but for a read-only dashboard aggregate with full annotation coverage this is close to sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter, workspaceId, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the multi-workspace requirement. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (Returns) and concrete resources (overdue activities and at-risk deals), and scopes it as the home dashboard's computed view, which separates it from plain list_activities or get_timeline. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

'that need your attention' implies a triage/prioritization use case, but the description never states when to prefer this over list_activities, search, or get_timeline. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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