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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return contents and the cross-tool naming convention ("pipelines and stages can be named in other tools by name"), which is behavior an agent needs and cannot infer from 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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: identity and return shape first, then call priority, then the naming convention. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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 carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so concretely (ordered stages, counts, value, won totals). Combined with the call-first guidance and the naming note, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. It correctly does not pad with irrelevant parameter talk.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (the signed-in person's ShearQuery Pipelines), and enumerates the returned content: ordered stages, open deal counts, open value per stage, and won totals. This clearly separates it from crm_opportunities, crm_opportunity, and the pipeline-mutation siblings.

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?

"Call this first for any pipeline, deal, lead or sales question" gives explicit routing priority over the deal/opportunity siblings. It stops short of naming a specific alternative or stating when not to use it, but the sequencing guidance is unusually strong.

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