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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent read, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: sync freshness and completeness are included, the window is UTC with start-inclusive/end-exclusive semantics, and certain metrics are categorically unavailable in this source.

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?

Three dense sentences with the scope stated first, then window semantics, then limitations. Every sentence carries information and none is redundant, though the unavailability clause is somewhat long.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described; the description instead supplies the scope, window boundaries, data-freshness caveat, and the explicit list of metrics that cannot be derived. What remains missing is only routing guidance relative to sibling LSA tools.

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 burden, and it partially does: it clarifies the start/end window semantics and that the window is UTC. However, it adds nothing about business_id (a uuid scoping the report) or the date-time string format expected by start/end.

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 names a specific verb (report) and enumerates the resource contents (LSA lead counts, types, statuses, ratings, credit counts), which is far more informative than the title. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_lsa_leads or get_lsa_account_report by being an aggregate count report, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implies the usage context (aggregate LSA lead reporting over an explicit UTC window) and adds a strong data-interpretation guardrail ('never infer' financials/signed cases/response times), but it gives no explicit when-to-use versus the other LSA tools such as list_lsa_leads or get_lsa_account_report.

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