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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'No email is sent to the owner' and the implicit side effect that a new company is created when only company_name is supplied.

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?

Roughly three compact sentences, front-loaded with the WRITE marker and endpoint, with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a 13-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation profile, the key side effect, and the company_name/company_id decision. It stops short of saying what the call returns (e.g. the new deal id), which an agent would have to discover empirically.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: the fallback relationship between company_name and company_id, and the 'when known' optionality framing for owner/stage/value/close date. It does not cover tag_ids, source_id, person_ids or custom_fields beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'WRITE: create a deal' verb+resource pair plus the target endpoint (POST /deals), which cleanly separates it from pipelinecrm_update_deal and pipelinecrm_get_deal. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It gives conditional guidance on inputs ('company or primary contact when known', 'a new company is created from company_name if no company_id is given'), which is useful. But it never states when to choose this tool over siblings like pipelinecrm_create_company or pipelinecrm_update_deal, so tool-selection 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.