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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are capped at the latest 100 source-attributed events, and recorded/imported signals do not imply a live provider connection — a caveat an agent could otherwise misread as an active integration.

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 returned-content inventory front-loaded and the caveat second. No filler; every clause carries content. Slightly terse, but nothing wasted.

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 effectively stands in for one by listing the returned sections, including the 100-event cap. For a read-only tool whose annotations already declare safety and idempotency, this is close to complete; only the omission of when-to-use guidance leaves a gap.

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 50%: workspaceId is well documented in the schema (teammate workspace, omit for own, supply on every call), while company_id has no description but is a self-evident uuid. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for partial coverage is appropriate.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns (company, linked lead contacts, opportunities, success plan, latest 100 events), which is specific enough to distinguish it from person-centric siblings like get_lead_profile and find_people. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve', but the resource list makes the read intent unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_lead_profile or list_signal_events, and no prerequisites are stated. The meaning is inferable from the content list alone, but nothing routes the agent between siblings.

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