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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail beyond that — the returned fields (ids, positions, pipeline) and the GET /steps endpoint — but is silent on whether results span all pipelines or one, and on pagination or result size.

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 short sentences plus the endpoint, with the payload contents and the practical use front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though the bare 'GET /steps' adds little for an agent.

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 one optional parameter, the description does the right thing by enumerating the returned fields. However, given the ambiguous scope (all pipelines vs. a specific one) and the presence of nocrm_list_pipelines as a sibling, the description leaves the agent to guess its relationship to pipelines.

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 single optional 'direction' enum parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions the direction control and its 'in order' phrasing could even mislead an agent into assuming ascending order is the only option.

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: 'The steps (stages) of the sales pipeline in order, with ids, positions and their pipeline' tells the agent exactly what is returned and that it is ordered. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the nearest sibling, nocrm_list_pipelines, which is not named anywhere.

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?

'Use the ids or names when filtering leads or moving a lead' explains what the output feeds into, which implies when the tool matters, but there is no explicit when-to-call guidance and no mention of when to use nocrm_list_pipelines instead (e.g. to discover pipeline ids first).

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