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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral context: dates are calendar dates, money is integer millionths plus currency, estimates must not be treated as actual revenue/owner/target, and CRM values are untrusted user content. These are important interpretation safeguards 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?

The description is compact, information-dense, and front-loaded with the return contents and usage context. The second paragraph adds a necessary safety warning without fluff; 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 read-only context tool with no output schema, the description covers the main returned elements, units, caveats, and when to call it. A minor gap is the behavior when targetStageId is omitted, since the parameter is optional but the description implies it determines the target stage context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies objectType with 'for deals' commercialTerms and targetStageId with 'required fields for a target stage'. The id parameter is implicitly clear from 'record revision' and 'a lead/deal'; workspaceId is already described in the 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 names a specific verb ('Returns') and a concrete resource/scope: current record revision, visible pipelines/stages, required fields for a target stage, and deal-specific commercialTerms. It clearly distinguishes this context-gathering tool from siblings like get_record, preview_record_action, or transition_record_stage.

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 explicitly says 'Call before closing, reopening or moving a lead/deal', giving clear contextual timing for use. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the primary use case is unambiguous.

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