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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld=false/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: a hard cap of 100 rows and oldest-first ordering, which an agent needs to reason about truncation and result ordering. It stops short of pagination or ordering-control guidance.

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 core answer (who is enrolled and where), then the diagnostic use case. Dense but purposeful; the em-dash aside is slightly overloaded, though every sentence carries information.

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 does the work of describing the returned fields and the 100-row ceiling, which is substantial for a read-only list tool. The remaining hole is the all-optional filter combination — an agent cannot predict the result set when it passes no filters or both.

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 coverage is only 33% — leadId and sequenceId are undocumented in the schema — and the description does recover both by naming them alongside their meaning. However, with 0 required parameters it never says whether the two filters combine, or what happens when neither is supplied, leaving the calling contract ambiguous.

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 the resource precisely (sequence enrollments), the two access paths (leadId or sequenceId), and enumerates the returned fields — status (active/finished/stopped), current step, next due date. This clearly separates it from list_sequences, which lists sequences rather than who is enrolled in them.

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?

Gives an explicit use case — answering "why did this lead get, or not get, the follow-up" — plus interpretive rules (no enrolment means never enrolled; activating a sequence only enrols future leads). It never names a sibling alternative or states when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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