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

Annotations already establish a safe, closed-world read; the description adds valuable extra context: the APPROVED-agency precondition and the fact that returned rows include status, notes, and last-touch timing. No rate limits, pagination, or default-behavior disclosure, but it goes meaningfully beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the agency precondition and the returned-field list front-loaded ahead of the use-case prompt. No filler, though the em-dash clause and quoted question are slightly decorative.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the account precondition, and the filter. The main omissions are pagination/result-size behavior and confirmation that omitting status returns all prospects.

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 0% and the single enum has no per-value documentation, so the description carries some burden. It clarifies that status is an optional single-value filter ('optionally only one status'), but adds nothing about the enum members or default (all-statuses) behavior.

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 resource (the agency's saved prospects) plus the fields returned (status, notes, last-touched date), and scopes it to an APPROVED agency. It does not name the adjacent siblings (find_prospects, prospect_details, save_prospect), so the agent must infer the distinction from 'saved' and 'its own'.

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?

Offers a concrete usage scenario ('who haven't I followed up with?') and implies the optional status narrowing, but never states when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for other prospect queries. Usage is implied rather than fully routed.

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