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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: a single call returns the complete breakdown and should not be decomposed into per-prospect calls. It does not discuss return shape or empty-result behavior, but an output schema exists.

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 a bolded one-line summary, followed by trigger phrases and an args block; nothing is buried. The phrase list is slightly long but each example maps to a distinct user utterance, and the whole thing stays scannable.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, triggers, aggregation behavior, and every parameter. The one gap is that it never says how simultaneous scope arguments (property_id vs shortname vs portfolio vs property_ids) interact or which wins.

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 carries the entire burden — and it does: it explains the YYYY-MM-DD format and the effective date defaults (90 days ago / today), which the schema only shows as empty strings. All six scope and date parameters are accounted for, including the four scope identifiers.

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 and output form ('counts of prospects by lead source') plus the scope (property or portfolio, date window) in the first sentence. An agent can distinguish it from get_prospect, analyze_prospect_pipeline, and analyze_lost_prospects without opening any 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?

Explicitly lists the user phrasings that should trigger it ('lead sources', 'where are prospects coming from', 'marketing channel ROI') and names the alternative to avoid ('do NOT loop over get_prospect'). Both the when and the when-not are present.

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