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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful project-scoping fact (statuses are per-project) and the enumeration constraint, but says nothing about return shape, caching, or whether statuses can change between calls.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (these are the only valid lead_status values) is placed in a parenthetical immediately after the resource definition. Nothing is wasted.

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, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does not indicate the shape of each status (name, id, ordering) even though that matters for feeding dosai_update_lead. For a one-parameter read tool it is adequate but leaves that 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 description coverage is 100% with a single project_id parameter already documented and cross-referenced to dosai_list_projects. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly names the resource and its scope: the funnel statuses a specific project uses for leads. It also implicitly separates itself from dosai_set_lead_statuses (write) and dosai_get_funnel by framing the result as the value domain for lead_status. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb phrase, so it is clear but not maximally explicit about the retrieval action.

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?

It gives a concrete reason to call the tool: these are the only values dosai_update_lead accepts for lead_status, which routes the agent here before attempting an update. It does not state when-not-to-use it or mention staleness/re-fetch conditions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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