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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, not open-world), yet the description still adds behavior the annotations cannot: the full-board/no-paging nature of the call, the API key requirement, the closed enumeration of stages, and the fact that money is returned in minor units and must be divided by 100 before display. The currency-unit warning is a genuine output-handling hazard that prevents a wrong answer.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line definition of what comes back, followed by routing guidance, then operational caveats. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of information; nothing is padding.

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 in the tool definition, the description takes on the burden of describing the return: board grouped by stage with revenue totals, whole board at once, values in minor units, plus the valid stage names. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents workspaceId at 100% coverage, including that it is an optional workspace UUID filter. The description adds no syntax or scoping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get the sales pipeline as a board') and immediately characterizes the shape of the result: deals grouped by stage with revenue totals. It also names the sibling it is not (list_deals returns the same deals flat), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit use case ('how does the pipeline look' questions, stage-by-stage review) and an explicit alternative with the condition that selects it: list_deals when you need filtering or paging, since this returns the whole board. That is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure.

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