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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the safety profile ('Read-only') plus the data-visibility scope (all branches visible to the user). It also implies the output content. It stops short of describing result shape details, error behavior, or whether stale-lead thresholds are configurable.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the safety note, then the parameter and prerequisite. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the only parameter's semantics, and the multi-branch prerequisite, which is enough to call it correctly. A brief note on the response granularity (e.g. per-stage buckets vs totals) would close the last 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 0% — the single 'branch' parameter has no schema description — and the description fully compensates: it names both accepted forms ('general' or a branch id obtained from crm_list_branches) and defines the omitted-value default. An agent could construct a valid call from the description alone.

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 (counts per stage, new today/this week, stale leads), which makes the resource and metric set unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like crm_list_leads or crm_list_stages, so an agent must infer that this is the aggregate view rather than the record-level one.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite workflow: if the workspace has multiple branches, call crm_list_branches first, then report per branch or ask the user. It also states the default when branch is omitted. What's missing is an explicit 'use this instead of crm_list_leads when you want counts, not rows' routing statement against the closest sibling.

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