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 the endpoint (GET /LeadStatuses) and the instance-scoped nature of the data, but says nothing about result volume, paging behavior, or ordering beyond what the schema already carries.

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?

A single tightly-packed sentence plus the endpoint reference. The purpose and return fields are front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully substitutes by naming the returned fields and the underlying endpoint. Annotations cover read-only safety and all three parameters are documented, so the only real gap is the absent usage/routing guidance.

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. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, which is the baseline 3 case when 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the lead statuses defined in the instance') and even enumerates the returned fields (LEAD_STATUS_ID, name, type). It is clearly distinguishable from the similar list_lead_sources/list_pipelines siblings by resource name, though it never explicitly contrasts them.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent choosing between this and insightly_list_lead_sources or insightly_list_pipelines gets no routing help from the description.

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