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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is read-only and scoped to the 'connected' Kommo account (implying an active integration prerequisite), which is useful. It says nothing about return shape, ordering, pagination, or what happens if no integration is connected.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and trailing with the read-only flag. Slightly fragmentary (no explicit verb) but every clause conveys information.

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, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description should at least convey the return content and any prerequisite. It does convey that it returns pipelines with stages and that an active Kommo connection is assumed, but leaves the shape of the response and edge cases (unconnected account) unaddressed.

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. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 the resource (pipelines and their statuses/stages in the connected Kommo account) and its role as values for pipeline_config. Distinguishable from sibling list_kommo_users, which lists users rather than pipeline structure. The verb 'list' is implied rather than stated, but the subject matter is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'values for pipeline_config' hints at when it's needed (populating pipeline configuration), but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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