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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds that results are weighted by stage probability and grouped by status/tier, giving some sense of the aggregation behavior. It says nothing about ordering, result size, or how weighting is computed, so the added value is modest.

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 with the primary framing front-loaded and the filtering behavior second. "The weighted where-are-we view" is slightly colloquial but does real work in conveying intent rather than padding.

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 simple, zero-required-param, read-only reporting tool with full annotation coverage, the description conveys enough: what entities, what grouping, what the weighting means, and the default scope. With no output schema present, a brief note on the returned fields would be the only remaining gap.

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 100% and the single optional campaign_id is already documented as "Only this campaign." The description contributes the complementary fact that omitting it returns everything, which is mild added meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-param tool where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific resource and shape: accounts grouped by status and tier with stage probabilities, characterized as the weighted pipeline view. It is clearly a read-only aggregate report rather than a record fetch or mutation, which separates it from most crm_* siblings. It stops short of naming a specific sibling to contrast with (e.g. crm_gaps or crm_coverage).

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?

"Filter by campaign or see everything" implies two usage modes and makes the no-arg default explicit, which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to reach for this instead of adjacent views like crm_coverage, crm_gaps, or crm_campaigns, and no exclusions.

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