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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the skip reasons (no inbound, waiting for reply, wrote too long ago, unsubscribed, recent broadcast) and reinforcing that nothing is sent.

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?

Front-loads the outcome (count and skipped reasons) and follows with the workflow instruction. No filler sentences; every clause contributes.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining results. It describes the count plus skip reasons clearly enough for a read-only preview, though it does not specify the exact return structure.

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 60%, with descriptions for project_id, channel default, and window_days. The description does not explain tag or lead_status semantics, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented parameters.

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: 'Count the people a broadcast would reach right now', and adds the exact diagnostic value (who is skipped and why). It is clearly distinguishable from dosai_start_broadcast and other broadcast tools.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Run this before start_broadcast and tell the owner the numbers.' This names the alternative action and the workflow ordering with no ambiguity.

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