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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the authorization requirement ('Needs opportunities.read'), which an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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 clauses, zero filler, with the motivating use case parenthetically front-loaded. Every phrase — the resource, the dependent ids, the scope — 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 small read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, this is nearly complete: it tells the agent what it returns conceptually (pipelines with pipeline/step ids) and what it is needed for. A brief note on the returned fields or the step-related sibling would make it fully complete.

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%, and the limit/offset descriptions already explain paging semantics in detail. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the sales pipelines') and immediately frames the purpose (gathering pipeline id and step id for opportunity creation). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling sellsy_list_pipeline_steps, which is the natural point of confusion, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear use case — call this before sellsy_create_opportunity because you need pipeline and step ids — plus the required scope 'opportunities.read'. It stops short of naming the related sibling (sellsy_list_pipeline_steps) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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