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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns deals with associated contacts, which is useful. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior or what happens when no deals match, but the annotations carry the main safety burden.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The routing note is a useful addition but slightly cryptic ('CRM/sales → see open pipeline → use this') and could be clearer. Overall, every sentence earns its place, though the routing arrow notation is a bit terse.

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 list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it lists, the company scope, filtering options, and a routing hint. It doesn't describe return format or pagination, but those are less critical for a simple list tool with annotations covering safety.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description mentions filtering by stage and limit, which maps to the schema, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('CRM deals'), and scope ('for the current company'), and mentions filtering by stage and limit. It also distinguishes itself from other list tools by specifying the CRM domain and the company scope. The routing note adds context that helps an agent understand where this fits in a workflow.

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 provides a routing hint ('CRM/sales → see open pipeline → use this') that gives context for when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the routing guidance is clear enough to guide an agent. It could be stronger with explicit exclusions or alternative tool names.

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