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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds two pieces of non-obvious operational context: results are paged with a 100-per-page cap, and calls are "Free" (no credit consumption) — a material fact for an agent deciding whether to issue many filtered queries. It stops short of stating the default page size, sort default, or whether a total count is returned.

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 with no filler; the filter inventory is front-loaded and the paging/cost facts are appended compactly. The first sentence is a long run-on list, but every clause maps to a distinct capability rather than repeating the schema verbatim.

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 15-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the filtering surface and paging/cost behavior but leaves notable gaps: the default lifecycle (active) and record_type (property) are only in the schema, and nothing indicates what a returned prospect looks like or how paging terminates. Adequate to invoke correctly if the agent reads the schema, but not self-sufficient.

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 73%, so the schema carries most of the weight and a 3 is the baseline. The description usefully paraphrases several filters and clarifies that "starred only" maps to favorites_only and "words" maps to the search param, but it never mentions record_type (default property vs. person) or source_group (d4d vs. map), two parameters whose interaction with source and search materially changes results.

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?

"Lists the workspace prospects" gives a specific verb and resource, and the enumeration of filter axes (lifecycle, source, list, tag, starred, search words, status, added_by, added dates) makes the scope concrete. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like dealmachine_people_search and dealmachine_property_search by scoping to the user's saved workspace prospects, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 filter inventory implies when to reach for this tool (browsing/filtering existing prospects), but there is no explicit "use X instead when..." routing despite the presence of closely related siblings such as dealmachine_people_search, dealmachine_property_search, dealmachine_get_prospects_counts, and dealmachine_list_add_items. An agent must infer the boundary from the word "workspace".

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