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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read. The description adds that the response includes pipelines together with their stages, which is genuinely useful content beyond the annotation, but it says nothing about pagination or the return shape beyond that single hint.

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 terse, front-loaded fragments with no filler; the resource comes first and the endpoint reference trails. It borders on overly sparse but every clause carries information.

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 and only a readOnly annotation, the description carries more of the burden. It covers the key payload fact (pipelines include stages) but omits return format and pagination behavior, leaving it barely adequate for a list tool.

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?

There is one optional parameter (name) with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents it as an exact pipeline name. The description adds no filtering syntax or behavior 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 resource (deal pipelines) and scope (with their stages), and ties the output to the stage ids used by fub_create_deal / fub_update_deal, so the agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling fub_list_stages, leaving some ambiguity about which list tool returns what.

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 parenthetical implies why you would call it (to obtain stage ids for create/update deal), which is a useful usage cue. However, it never states when to prefer this over fub_list_stages or other list tools, nor any prerequisites, so the guidance is only implied.

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