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

Even though annotations already declare a safe read-only operation, the description adds operational behavior: orphaned leads stop progressing, the tool reports but does not repair, and remediation requires another call. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage timing, then non-repair behavior. Each sentence contributes distinct information, and nothing is redundant.

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 audit tool with no output schema, the description explains what will be reported, when to invoke it, and how it relates to remediation. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret its role.

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 required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself noting `flowId` comes from `flow_get`. The description does not add semantic detail about the parameter, so the high schema coverage makes 3 the correct baseline.

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 reporting purpose: what the most recent sequence edit did to leads in flight, including re-pointed, orphaned, and cancelled/rescheduled counts. It clearly distinguishes this audit from flow_set and lead_move, which are named as repair paths.

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 straight after `flow_set` on an ACTIVE campaign and explains why: it is the only way to see collateral damage. It also states what the tool does not do and names the alternatives (`flow_set`, `lead_move`) for fixing orphans.

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