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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds useful behavioral scope by listing what the stats include, such as enrichment state and remaining quota, but it does not describe the response shape or whether output is one summary object versus a table. For a read-only aggregate, this is adequate but not rich.

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 description is a single efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded ('How the pipeline stands') followed by a compact list of covered metrics. It is slightly run-on, but no words are wasted.

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 input parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for explaining what the tool returns. It lists all major report dimensions, which is enough for an agent to know what to expect, though it leaves terms like 'enrichment state' and the exact response format implicit.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden; the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on the metrics returned rather than inputs.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a pipeline-wide status/summary reporter by enumerating the exact metrics it covers (prospect counts, enrichment state, email availability, contacts, 7-day additions, signal types, quota). It stops short of an explicit verb like 'retrieves' and does not name sibling alternatives, but the aggregate nature is unmistakable and distinct from list/get/send siblings.

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?

The metric list strongly implies this tool is for high-level pipeline overview questions rather than per-record operations such as get_prospect or list_prospects. However, it never explicitly states when to use it versus a sibling, and it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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