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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no operational detail such as return granularity, pagination, or whether the list is org-wide, so it contributes almost nothing beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The second clause is somewhat compressed and could be more direct, but the structure is efficient overall.

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 no-parameter read tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile and with no output schema, the description states what data is returned: the organization's lost reasons. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though it could still specify return granularity or ordering.

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?

With zero parameters and a 100% schema description coverage (the schema is empty), the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to clarify.

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 identifies the resource as the organization's lost reasons and ties it to the deal-lost reason selection flow, which is a specific enough noun phrase to distinguish it from write-oriented siblings like save_the_lost_reasons. The verb is only implied through the tool name and title, but the resource is clear.

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 phrase 'the list a deal moved to Lost names its reason from' implies the context in which this list is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling save_the_lost_reasons for the opposite operation.

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