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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the returned structure (pipelines with their stages), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result size limits, or whether pipelines are workspace-scoped.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and why it matters, then the underlying REST route. No filler.

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 carries responsibility for describing the return value, and it does so briefly (pipelines and stages with ids). Missing only pagination/ordering details, which are unlikely to matter for a small pipeline list.

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. The empty schema matches the description's claim of a plain list call.

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 (List) and resource (sales pipelines and their stages), and goes further by naming the payload's purpose: the ids needed to place opportunities. None of the sibling list_* tools (activities, activity_types, users) overlaps with this scope.

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 clause 'ids needed to place opportunities' tells the agent the precondition that selects this tool before creating an opportunity, which is clear context. It does not, however, name an explicit alternative or state when not to call it.

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