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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds that it can return pipelines and stages, and mentions batch execution. However, it does not clarify that only the list action is available here, or disclose response format or pagination behavior, so the added transparency is limited.

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?

The description is short but includes redundant action enumerations and a vague opening line. It is not poorly sized, but the structure is a bit disjointed—starting with a generic statement, then a list of actions, a flattened-action note, and a bulk note. Could be more streamlined.

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 should clarify the return structure. It only says 'Funis (pipelines) e seus estágios', implying pipelines and stages, but not how they are formatted, how pagination works (given page/limit params), or what account does. The description is incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and unexplained output.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains pipeline_ids for batch support. Parameters like page, limit, account, and pipeline_id are not described at all, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

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 states it lists funis (pipelines) and their stages, with 'action: list' clearly identifying the primary behavior. However, it also mentions get and statuses actions, which could confuse, but the flattened action note clarifies that this tool is the list variant. It distinguishes from siblings like kommo_pipelines_get and kommo_pipelines_statuses, though not explicitly.

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 description mentions bulk support via pipeline_ids, which is a usage hint, but it does not explicitly tell the agent when to use this tool versus the get or statuses siblings. It lists actions but does not state 'use this for list, use other tools for get/statuses', leaving guidance implicit.

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