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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, but the description adds value beyond it: it discloses the returned entity shape (StatusId, Name, IsActive) and the tradeoff that custom fields are verbose and off by default. It does not discuss pagination or ordering, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling exclusion immediately after. The trailing 'LACRM: GetPipelines.' is a minor API-mapping annotation rather than description content, slight overhead but not harmful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the status fields and the optional custom-field payload. Combined with the 100% schema coverage and readOnly annotation, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema with their defaults, so the description only marginally reinforces them ('optionally their custom fields'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the account's pipelines') with concrete example ('Sales Leads') and an explicit statement of what is returned (statuses with StatusId, Name, IsActive). It directly names and rules out the sibling lacrm_list_pipeline_items, so an agent can disambiguate without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states 'This is the setup, not the items — use lacrm_list_pipeline_items for those,' which gives both the boundary and the named alternative. The inclusion of the 'LACRM: GetPipelines' API mapping further anchors when this tool applies.

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