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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds a note about bulk support via pipeline_ids, which is useful; no contradiction with annotations.

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 fragmented and includes an 'action' parameter that does not exist in the schema, causing confusion. It is not well-structured and contains redundant or misleading parts, though it is short.

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?

Given the availability of sibling tools and annotations, the description still lacks essential context such as what the statuses represent, how to specify pipeline_id, and what the output format is. It does not fully cover the tool's capabilities.

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 schema includes five parameters (page, limit, account, pipeline_id, pipeline_ids) but the description only hints at pipeline_ids for bulk execution. The other parameters are not explained, leaving most of the input semantics unclear.

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 mentions pipelines and their stages, but it ambiguously lists multiple actions (list, get, statuses) without indicating that this tool is specifically for statuses. It does not clearly state that this is for retrieving stage information, though the name suggests it.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool over the sibling tools kommo_pipelines_list or kommo_pipelines_get. It mentions bulk support, but lacks clear guidance on when this tool should be chosen.

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