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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-destructive read, so the bar is lowered. The description usefully adds that the payload contains LEAD_STATUS_ID, name, and type, and cites the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering, which matters for a paginated list.

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 primary action and resource. The endpoint citation ('Insightly: GET /LeadStatuses') is slightly redundant but compact and harmless.

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 read-only reference-list tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint, the description covers purpose and returned fields adequately. Nothing critical is missing, though a note on paging or the default 100-record cap would round it out.

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 100%, so top, skip, and include_converted are fully documented in the schema and the description need not repeat them. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 lead statuses defined in the instance') and even names the returned fields, so the agent knows it retrieves reference data rather than leads. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as insightly_list_lead_sources or insightly_list_pipelines, but the resource noun is distinct enough to route correctly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other list/reference tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no stated exclusions. The usage (fetching status definitions to map IDs to names) is only implicit in the field list, not spelled out.

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