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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context: the commercial field semantics (versioned metric micros or null for legacy scalar) and the warning that CRM values are untrusted. This goes beyond annotations and informs safe usage.

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 description is a single dense paragraph but front-loads the core behavior. Every sentence adds value—behavior, limit details, commercial semantics, and security note. It is structured logically and not overly verbose.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return content (pipelines, stages, deals/leads, commercial field) and the security consideration. It lacks explicit error handling or pagination details, but these are not critical for calling it correctly.

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 only 33% (only workspaceId described). The description compensates by explaining limit (default 20, max 50) and pipelineId (triggers summary mode). It also clarifies the return structure, aiding parameter understanding even though workspaceId is only in schema.

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 states the dual behavior: without pipelineId it lists viewable pipelines; with pipelineId it returns stages and deals/leads with their stage. This is specific, uses a clear verb+resource, and distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like get_record or list_records by focusing on pipeline-level summary.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for pipeline summaries or listing pipelines) and the optional pipelineId behavior. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is enough for an agent to decide. The security note about treating CRM values as data adds a usage caution.

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