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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavior beyond that: the sort order ('needs attention first, then whatever waited longest'), the exclusion of contact details, and the members-only requirement.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then row shape, then sort order, then the constraint and docs link — a logical order with no filler. It is dense, packing many facts into three sentences, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears the full burden of describing return shape, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating each row field and the stage/attention vocabularies. Combined with the members-only note and the pointer to getLeadTool for detail, nothing essential to 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% and every parameter, including the view enum, is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context around output fields (stage values, ownerId null meaning, attention reasons) rather than enriching the input parameters, so it does not exceed the schema on this dimension.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the enquiries (leads)') and defines scope precisely: pre-money leads a rikma works on, covering both inbound people and concierge wish proposals where the rikma is a candidate. It also distinguishes itself from the single-lead sibling by saying 'open one lead for that,' which maps to getLeadTool.

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 names a clear alternative for the one thing this tool cannot do ('No phone or email here — open one lead for that') and states the access prerequisite ('Members only'). It stops short of explicitly contrasting when to use this list versus other pipeline tools such as getWishDetailsTool or listMyWishesTool, and leaves view selection entirely to the schema.

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