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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return ordering (flow order) and that probability is included per phase — useful behavioral context a schema can't convey since there is no output 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 short sentences with zero waste: the resource and ordering come first, followed by the practical usage hint. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (phases, order, probability) and how it's used. Pagination behavior is left entirely to the schema, a minor gap but adequate overall.

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 page, page_size, and deal_pipeline_id are fully documented in the schema. The description referencing "deal pipelines" loosely hints at the pipeline filter but adds no format or scoping detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (phases of deal pipelines) and adds distinguishing detail: flow order and probability. An agent can easily differentiate it from the sibling teamleader_list_deal_pipelines, which returns pipelines rather than their phases.

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?

"Use a phase id when creating a deal" gives a clear downstream use case that motivates calling this tool before teamleader_create_deal. It lacks explicit when-not conditions or naming of alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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