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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the status enumeration values ('Prospect' | 'Customer' | 'Lost' | 'All'), which is real, non-redundant context, but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or scoping behavior across the four selector parameters.

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 purpose sentence is short and front-loaded, but the trailing 'status:' fragment is structurally detached and reads like schema prose pasted into the description rather than an integrated part of the tool's documentation.

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 five loosely typed selector parameters, no required fields, and 0% schema coverage, the description would need to explain how to target a single property versus a portfolio versus multiple properties. It covers only status; an output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the input ambiguity is unresolved.

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 full burden, yet it explains only one of five parameters. The status enum values are a genuine addition the schema lacks, but portfolio, shortname, property_id, and property_ids are left entirely undefined, including how the single-id and multi-id forms relate.

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 concrete verb+resource ('List prospects (leads)') and the scoping dimension ('for a property or portfolio'). It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_prospect, analyze_prospect_pipeline, or analyze_lost_prospects, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no statement of when an alternative like get_prospect (single prospect) or the pipeline analysis tools is preferable, and no prerequisites. Only the status default is mentioned, which is parameter documentation rather than usage guidance.

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