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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one real behavioral fact beyond annotations: the response includes the pipeline's stages. It says nothing about authorization needs or error behavior for a nonexistent id.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the resource and scope; nothing is padded. The trailing raw endpoint path is mildly redundant with the name and schema but cheap and grounding for API-aware agents.

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 single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description tells the agent what is fetched and that stages are included, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the absence of guidance about an unknown id keeps it from being 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is described there as 'Teamgate pipeline id.' The description's 'by id' adds no format, range, or source-of-value detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 resource ('One sales pipeline') and retrieval key ('by id'), plus the scope ('with its stages'). The singular framing implicitly contrasts with the sibling teamgate_list_pipelines, but it never names that alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The phrase 'by id' implies a lookup when the pipeline id is already known, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to teamgate_list_pipelines for discovery. The agent must infer the routing itself.

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