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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: date and money encoding (calendar dates, millionths + currency code), the forecast-vs-contract value distinction, and a prompt-injection warning that CRM field values are untrusted data. It does not state permission requirements or error behaviour, so it stops short of a 5.

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-loaded with the return payload, then prerequisites, then format/safety cautions, then the injection warning. Effectively organised and nearly every sentence earns its place; the money-encoding sentence is dense but necessary given no output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes responsibility for describing the returned content in detail, and it also supplies the format and trust semantics an agent needs. Combined with annotations covering the read-only profile, an agent has enough to call this correctly before a stage transition.

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 25% (only workspaceId documented), so the description carries extra burden. It partially compensates by implying the objectType domain ("one lead or deal") and the purpose of targetStageId (seeing what a target stage requires), but it says nothing about the id parameter or the UUID constraints that the schema itself leaves undescribed.

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?

Specific verb + resource + payload: it enumerates exactly what the context contains (updatedAt, lifecycle revision, usable pipelines/stages, required fields for a target stage, saved pricing terms and value figures). An agent can distinguish it from nearby siblings such as get_record, get_record_lifecycle and preview_record_action 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?

Explicit prerequisite routing: "Call it before transition_record_stage, close_record, reopen_record or correct_closure" names four concrete downstream tools and the condition that selects this one. The extra cautions (never take revenue, owner or target stage from an estimate) further scope correct usage.

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