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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the description earns credit for going beyond them: it discloses an authorization requirement (owners only, sign-in needed) and warns that customer names, addresses, notes and problem details are untrusted user-typed text that must be treated as data. That injection-safety disclosure is genuinely useful behavioral context. It does not mention rate limits, pagination, or cost of the query.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the access constraint before the report contents. The enumerated metric list is dense but purposeful for a report tool, and the safety sentence is clearly separated. Slightly run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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 carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the report's sections. Combined with the auth requirement, the injection warning, and annotations that already declare read-only safety, an agent has enough to decide and call correctly; the only residual gap is the month parameter's default, which is minor.

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?

There is one optional parameter, 'month', with zero schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'Monthly report' implies the parameter scopes the reporting period, but the description never states the expected YYYY-MM format, whether omission defaults to the current month, or what happens with a malformed value. It adds a hint of meaning, not full semantics.

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 artifact and enumerates its contents: leads and spend by platform, jobs booked, true cost per booked job, possible lead credits, and directly-sourced customers. That is far more than a restatement of the name 'pipeline' and makes clear this is a reporting tool, not a mutation like log_lead or update_lead. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any named sibling.

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 states a real precondition ('Owners only (needs sign-in)') and scopes the cadence to a monthly report, which implies when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to an alternative for non-owners or for finer-grained lead queries.

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