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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read-only, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is a date-range summary report and it requires a Cotlet API key with access to this app, which is an auth prerequisite the annotations do not carry.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the first sentence lists the same three metrics that the second sentence then re-lists ('listings live per department... lead counts... Premium Listings in use'), which is redundant phrasing that costs space without adding information.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so concretely, and it notes the auth requirement and the alternative tool for drill-down. It is essentially complete for a two-parameter summary report, with only minor gaps around report scope/sibling differentiation.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents 'from' and 'to' with their date formats and defaults. The description only says 'for a date range' without adding syntax, bounds, or timezone detail, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 verb and resource (headline dashboard numbers for ZooplaPro) and enumerates exactly what is returned: listings live per department, lead counts by type, and Premium Listings in use. It also separates itself from the per-listing siblings by framing the scope as aggregate dashboard figures.

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 routes the agent to list_leads when the individual leads behind the counts are needed, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other aggregation siblings such as zoopla_get_featured_properties_report or zoopla_get_listing_performance, so the coverage is partial.

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