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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the permission scope requirement, which is genuinely useful and not in the structured data, but says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior, or ordering of returned steps.

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, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the permission requirement second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read-only, single-required-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. A brief note on what a pipeline step contains or how to obtain a pipeline_id from the sibling lister would close the remaining gap.

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%: limit, offset (including the string-vs-numeric cursor rule) and pipeline_id are all documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline of 3 when the schema does the work.

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?

The description gives a specific verb (List) and resource (steps of one opportunity pipeline), and the words 'one' / 'steps' distinguish it conceptually from sellsy_list_opportunity_pipelines. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'Needs opportunities.read' supplies a concrete prerequisite, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to sellsy_list_opportunity_pipelines for discovering pipeline ids, so routing is only implied.

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