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

Beyond the readOnlyHint already in annotations, it discloses the aggregation invariant (amounts are never summed across currencies), the default filter (open deals only), the empty-state expectation (companies start with no pipeline) and a capability boundary (pipelines are created by users, not by this server). That last point prevents an agent from assuming this tool can bootstrap a pipeline.

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 return contents are front-loaded and nearly every clause adds information — the currency rule, the default scope, the id-sourcing role, and the empty-state warning. It is dense to the point of being a run-on, which costs a point on readability, but there is no 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, so the description must describe the result — and it does, in detail: stage ordering, deal fields, counts, and per-stage and pipeline-level sums by currency. Combined with the default-filter and no-pipeline-creation notes, nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so both optional parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the pipeline_id and include_closed defaults in prose, which reinforces but does not materially extend what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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?

It names the resource (a pipeline board) and enumerates precisely what comes back: ordered stages with open/won/lost status, deals with contact, amount, currency, expected date and owner, plus counts and per-currency sums. It also positions itself against siblings by stating it is the source of the pipeline and stage ids consumed by crm_open_deal and crm_move_deal, so an agent can distinguish it from those tools without opening a schema.

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?

Usage context is explicit and non-obvious: this is the lookup that must precede crm_open_deal and crm_move_deal because those tools need pipeline/stage ids. Default semantics are also spelled out (all pipelines when pipeline_id is absent, open deals only unless include_closed). It lacks an explicit 'do not use for X' exclusion, but the context is clear.

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