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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add beyond that, and it does: it describes what each suggestion carries (company, reason, possibly matching existing deal) and flags the empty-until-new-pipeline behavior. It does not discuss ordering, volume, or whether suggestions are dismissible, keeping it below 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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first defines the resource and its payload, the second delivers the critical empty-result caveat. The most important identifying information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, what a returned item contains, and the notable empty-state condition. It leaves out how an agent should follow up on a suggestion (presumably createDeal), which is a minor but real gap for a discovery tool feeding a write workflow.

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 no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify; the description correctly spends no words on inputs. Baseline of 4 applies for a zero-parameter 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 gives a specific verb ("Lists") and a precisely defined resource: pending deal suggestions, explicitly characterized as "a contact or account whose stage or reply suggests a deal that does not exist yet." That definition of non-existent deals implicitly separates it from listDeals/getDealSummaries, which cover actual deals, so an agent can route correctly 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?

It supplies real usage context — the tool returns an empty list until the workspace adopts the new pipeline, which prevents an agent from misreading an empty result as "no opportunities." It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly (e.g., "use listDeals for existing deals" or "use createDeal to act on a suggestion"), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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