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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by specifying the response envelope and, importantly, the authentication prerequisite: users must bring their own GoHighLevel token via _apiKey, and locationId is required for v2 pit- tokens. 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool lists, what it returns, and how to chain/authenticate. The most important details are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition beyond a necessary auth reminder.

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?

The description is complete for a simple read-only list tool. It names the output envelope and fields, explains how to use the result downstream, and covers the token/locationId requirements. With no output schema present, it supplies the essential return-value information inline.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents _apiKey and locationId, including the v1/v2 distinction. The description only restates the auth requirement rather than adding new parameter semantics, which is acceptable at the baseline given the high schema coverage.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'List all sales pipelines and their stages in the account.' It also clarifies the output envelope (pipelines with IDs, names, ordered stages) and explicitly connects it to leadconnector_list_opportunities, making it easy to distinguish from sibling listing tools.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is useful: when the agent needs pipeline IDs and stage structure, and it explicitly instructs to pass the returned pipeline ID into leadconnector_list_opportunities. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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