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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds caller-scoped data, the prioritization order (overdue > convert > follow-up), the no-side-effect guarantee, and the authentication requirement. These are meaningful behavioral traits 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?

Three sentences pack the core purpose, response contents, read-only/no-execution caveat, and auth requirement without redundancy. The most important info is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the result contains (categories, rationale, next tool, arguments), the ranking order, and the follow-up action pattern. No critical operational detail is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify that the schema doesn't already handle. The description correctly focuses on output semantics instead.

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 specifically that it returns the caller's prioritized next-best sales actions with rationale and the exact next tool to run (convert_lead_to_deal / log_deal_activity / complete_sales_task). This clearly distinguishes it from data-retrieval siblings like get_sales_analytics and direct mutation tools like complete_sales_task.

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?

Explains this is a read-only recommendation layer, says nothing is executed or sent, and instructs that approving an item means calling the named write tool. It does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling like list_deals instead, but the routing to the exact next tool gives sufficient operational guidance.

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