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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read. The description adds real context beyond the annotation: it describes the pipeline's scope and discloses the returned _id field. It omits ordering, pagination, or result-size behavior, so it is helpful but not rich.

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 tight sentences, front-loading what the tool returns and following with the filter and follow-up action. No wasted text.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what the collection is, how to filter it, and what to do with the returned _id. Only the required organizationId semantics and ordering/pagination are left unstated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains the two optional filters (status, coach) in natural language, but the required organizationId is only implied by 'the gym's' and the status enum values are never described.

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 (list the gym's shared lead pipeline) and clarifies what a prospect is (enquired via gym page or added by coaches). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling list_prospects, so an agent must still infer which list tool applies.

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 says the result can be 'optionally filtered by status or coach' and points to update_prospect_status / add_prospect_note for follow-up actions using the returned _id. That is useful downstream guidance, but there is no statement of when to use this versus list_prospects or get_prospect_stats, so usage is only implied.

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