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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing return content (statuses with StatusId/Name/IsActive) and warning that custom fields are verbose — explaining why the flag defaults to false. Pagination/auth behavior remains unstated, keeping it 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 clauses with zero filler; the core purpose is front-loaded before the sibling routing hint and API mapping. Every sentence earns its place.

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 compensates by sketching the returned fields and the status shape, which is adequate for a simple read-only list tool. Minor gaps (no mention of ordering, pagination, or how archived/custom-field flags interact) keep it from a 5.

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 document their defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only obliquely references the custom-fields option ('optionally their custom fields'), adding little beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('List the account's pipelines') plus the returned structure (StatusId, Name, IsActive) and explicitly contrasts with lacrm_list_pipeline_items. An agent can distinguish it from the similarly named sibling 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 frames the tool's role ('This is the setup, not the items') and names the alternative (lacrm_list_pipeline_items) for the item-listing case. When-to-use is unambiguous.

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