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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing the data scope ('this agency'), the aggregated nature of the snapshot, and the specific metrics returned, including the 7-day window for viewings.

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, both valuable and front-loaded. The first sentence lists the actual data contents concisely; the second provides a direct, actionable usage instruction. No fluff or repetition of the title or schema.

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 overview tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states purpose, contents, data scope, and when to call it. An agent can invoke it correctly and know what to expect without needing additional return-format details.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter semantics burden for the description to carry. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics instead of parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: a 'pipeline snapshot' for the agency. It enumerates the exact contents (open deals by stage with EUR value, cold-deal count, upcoming viewings, contact/property counts), making it easy to identify its scope and distinguish it from the more granular sibling list/get tools.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Call this first for any how are we doing / what needs attention question.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it stops just short of a full 5.

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