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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool is the authoritative count source, should not be substituted with estimates, and excludes Stripe customers. No contradiction 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the source-of-truth guidance, read-only note, Stripe exclusion, and routing rule. All sentences carry value, though the emphatic capitalization of 'THE' is slightly unnecessary and the routing block is somewhat redundant with the earlier guidance.

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?

The tool has one parameter, full schema coverage for that parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema. The description provides enough context for correct invocation: what is counts, which categories, the read-only safety, the alternative Stripe tool, and the routing condition. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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 schema already describes companyId fully as the FreedomOS company id with a membership requirement. The description adds little beyond the phrase 'current company,' which aligns with the parameter but does not substantially deepen parameter understanding. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Aggregate counts') and a precise resource ('Leads CRM (crm_leads)'), listing the exact breakdowns returned: active leads by temperature, lifecycle stage, do-not-contact, and archived totals. It also distinguishes itself as the source of truth for lead counts versus Stripe for paying customers, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says to call this tool when lead counts or pipeline temperature snapshots are needed, and never to estimate or zero-fill lead counts. It also names get_subscription_stats as the alternative for paying customers and provides a routing rule ('CRM/sales → lead counts or pipeline temperature snapshot → use this').

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