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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (prospects are leads not yet converted to clients) and notes the status filter, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite two paging params existing.

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, front-loaded with the core action and resource, zero waste, and the parenthetical definition earns its place by disambiguating the term 'prospect'.

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 list tool with no output schema and 0% param coverage, the description is thin: it omits pagination semantics and return-shape context, and does not address the sibling list_organization_prospects. An agent cannot fully call this correctly without consulting the schema.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions only the status filter and ignores pageSize and pageNumber entirely, leaving two of three parameters with no semantic explanation anywhere.

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 (List) and resource (the coach's prospects), and even defines the domain term with '(leads who have not become clients yet)'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_organization_prospects, leaving the agent to infer the difference between the coach-scoped and organization-scoped listings.

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 only usage hint is 'Optionally filter by status,' which implies a filterable read but gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With a near-identical sibling (list_organization_prospects) present, the description should route the agent but does not.

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