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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the scoping to the authenticated user's pipeline, the newest-first ordering, and the default triage filter. It omits pagination/result-volume behavior, keeping it out of the top score.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the filtering behavior. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 whose annotations cover the safety profile and with no output schema to document, the description covers the essential default, ordering, and filtering semantics. Pagination defaults are left to the schema, a minor gap but acceptable.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a semantic the schema lacks: that stage defaults to triage (new, unreviewed) and that all=true means every stage. This clarifies default parameter behavior beyond the raw enum, meriting a modest bump.

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 and resource (List pitches), scopes it to the authenticated user's deal pipeline, and specifies ordering (newest first). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_pitch_analysis, get_pitch_email, or create_pitch without ambiguity.

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?

Gives clear usage context: the default is the triage stage, pass a stage to filter, or all=true for every stage. It does not name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this one, but the selection guidance among its own modes is explicit.

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