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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, closed-world read operation. The description adds the filter condition (unconverted signups) but doesn't mention pagination, return format, or whether results are sorted. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key condition. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though it could be slightly more structured by stating the action explicitly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and annotations covering safety, the description provides the core filter but omits parameter explanations and usage context. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent to infer how to use the parameters effectively.

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 0%, so the schema provides no descriptions for the 'days' and 'include_converted' parameters. The description doesn't explain these parameters at all. However, with only two parameters and a default behavior implied by the description ('haven't been converted'), the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly defines the resource: businesses that signed up for the free Shadow Trial on ringguard.online and haven't been converted to a lead. This distinguishes it from siblings like find_leads or convert_trial_to_lead by focusing on unconverted trial signups. It doesn't explicitly state the action (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'list'), but the context implies a query.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_leads or claim_lead. The description implies it's for fetching unconverted trial signups, but doesn't state when to choose it over other lead-finding tools or what prerequisites exist.

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