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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful access requirement (plan with CRM access) and stage-filter scoping, but does not mention pagination or return details.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and content, with no redundant material. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description covers the access prerequisite and the main output fields. Since there is no output schema, it could add return-format or pagination details, but nothing essential is missing for a typical call.

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 100% with clear descriptions for limit, stage, and search. The description adds only the 'needs work' interpretation of stage filtering, which is marginal beyond what the schema already provides.

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 title supplies the verb ('Read') and the description names the resource (CRM pipeline) and its content (leads with stage and value). It is clearly a list/read tool, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from similar read tools like get_list_leads or list_opportunities.

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?

The description offers a concrete use case: filter by stage to see leads that need work, and it states the plan-level prerequisite. It doesn't name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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