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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: the default trailing ~90-day window and the semantic scope (everything that drops out vs everything coming in). Doesn't mention pagination or result size, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the report identifier and purpose, then progressively more detail. Every sentence adds information; no filler.

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 values needn't be described. However, for a 5-parameter analytical tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the parameter surface entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful completeness gap for an agent trying to invoke it with the right arguments.

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% across 5 parameters, and the description only obliquely touches the date window via the ~90-day default. It never explains top_n, portfolio, or property_ids, so it fails to compensate for the total lack of parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('lost-lead funnel analysis') and enumerates the concrete outputs: funnel-stage breakdown, agents with lost leads, properties with worst conversion, timeline. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling analyze_prospect_pipeline, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative (analyze_prospect_pipeline) and the selecting condition: that tool counts inbound leads, this one counts dropouts. Also gives the default time window (~90 days). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the alternative contrast is clear.

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