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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by framing every result as advisory ('a suggestion') and asserting the system never sends, submits, or clicks — an agent needs that to know it must not treat these outputs as actions already taken. The 'JH-7' reference is opaque jargon that adds no information.

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, front-loaded with the concrete category list, and the behavioral caveat follows. The unexplained internal ticket reference ('JH-7') is wasted text, but overall there is little 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?

With no output schema, the description carries more burden: it roughly conveys what categories come back, but not the shape of an item (fields, ordering, volume, or whether items are grouped by category). For a reporting/aggregation tool that is an appreciable gap, though the category list gives enough to call it correctly.

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% with a single optional horizon_days parameter, so the schema already does the documenting ('Default 7.'). The description says nothing about the horizon window or what happens when it is omitted or widened, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 enumerates the concrete categories the tool surfaces (overdue and upcoming next actions, follow-up nudges, ghosted suggestions, stale leads, missing end clients, upcoming interviews), which makes the resource specific and distinguishes it from pure-list siblings like hunt_pipeline. It is weakened by an opening phrase that restates the title ('What needs attention') instead of naming a verb like 'list' or 'aggregate'.

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?

Usage is only implied — the reader infers this is the 'what should I work on' entry point. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over hunt_pipeline, core_next_actions, or crm_today, all of which are plausible siblings for similar questions, and no exclusions stated.

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