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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by clarifying this is a status/observation read that does not enqueue work, reinforcing the boundary against refresh tools. It does not, however, disclose anything about counting semantics or freshness of the counts.

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, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the exclusion trailing as a qualifier. Every clause earns its place.

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 rich annotations and an existing output schema, the description only needs to cover scope, trigger, and the read-vs-enqueue boundary, all of which it does. No needed information for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so both parameters (campaignId, workspaceId) are already fully documented in the schema, including the workspace-key defaults behavior. The description only restates the optional campaign filter, adding no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reading workspace lead-enrichment queue status counts, with an optional campaign scope. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the enqueue/refresh siblings ('it does not enqueue refreshes'), so an agent can separate it from campaignstack_refresh_leads and campaignstack_enrich_leads without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user asks whether lead refresh/enrichment is moving') and an explicit exclusion ('it does not enqueue refreshes'), which routes the agent away from the mutating refresh tools. Nothing is left to inference.

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