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 the underlying endpoint (GET /client_properties) and the domain relationship between deals, contacts, properties and pipeline stages, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps or return shape. Useful addition over annotations, but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the domain model, followed by filters and the cross-reference. No filler or repetition; the endpoint note is terse.

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 15-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the domain model, the filter axes and the stage-id cross-reference, while the schema covers pagination details. The only gap is return/pagination behavior, which is partially handled by the per/page schema descriptions (including the next_page hint).

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% (all 15 params carry descriptions, including per/page defaults, ISO date bounds, embed flags), so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 applies. The description only restates the filterable dimensions as prose and adds no syntax or semantics 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List deals') and goes further by defining the domain object ('a deal links a contact to a property and sits in a pipeline stage'), which is the key mental model needed to reason about the sibling list/create/update tools. It also names the sibling propstack_list_deal_pipelines for stage ids, so an agent can route correctly without opening another 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?

It gives concrete filtering guidance ('Filter by pipeline, stage, category..., contact, property, project or owner') and an explicit alternative for one sub-task ('Use propstack_list_deal_pipelines for stage ids'). It stops short of saying when not to use this tool (e.g. single-deal lookup vs get/list) but the context is clear.

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