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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds useful context about the exact subset of businesses and a team restriction. It does not describe the effect of the status parameter or what the response contains, but it does not contradict the annotation.

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 short sentences, with the most important restriction ('Only for the Awning team') front-loaded. Every sentence adds relevant scope information and there is no filler.

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-only tool, the description conveys the core data scope, and readOnlyHint covers safety. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explicitly state the return format or explain how the status parameter behaves, leaving some inference required.

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 0%, and the description says nothing about the optional status parameter or how its enum values filter results. The enum values are self-explanatory, but no relationship between the described leads and the status stages is provided.

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 identifies a specific resource (website enquiries for the Awning team) and adds a distinguishing filter (businesses that have not filled the questionnaire), separating it from siblings like op_applications. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', so the action must be inferred.

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 phrase 'Only for the Awning team' provides a clear audience/scope restriction, and the 'not filled the questionnaire yet' condition implies when this leads view is relevant. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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