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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond annotations — results are ordered by most recently updated — but says nothing about default row count behavior, filtering effect of status, or what happens at the ceiling.

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?

One sentence with zero filler: verb and scope lead, returned fields and ordering follow. 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 2-param read-only list tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and how results are ordered. It stops short of explaining how the status filter interacts with the 'open/won/lost' lifecycle or pagination via limit, which would have made it 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%, so both the limit (max 25 default, ceiling 100) and the status enum are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning to either parameter, which matches the baseline 3 for a fully documented 2-parameter schema.

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 and resource (list deals) scoped to 'this account', and even names the returned attribute (pipeline stage name) and sort order. The resource is clearly distinct from sibling list_* tools such as list_contacts and list_leads, though the description never explicitly contrasts with list_pipeline_stages.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for this account' (account-scoped enumeration) but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer a narrower sibling, and no note of what the status filter is for. An agent must infer the selection context.

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