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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is to add content-level context — and it does: it discloses that deal counts are computed per stage and that stages carry a kind and a "what moves a deal there" field. It omits whether counts include archived deals and whether results are paginated or ordered.

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 dense sentences, return content front-loaded, with the practical consequence (stage ids needed for deal creation/moves) placed last. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does: pipelines, stages with fields and kinds, and deal counts per stage. Minor gaps remain (pagination, ordering, whether deal counts are filtered in any way) for a tool with a single required parameter.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%; the schema already explains workspace_id as the CRM project id returned by dosai_list_workspaces. The description's "CRM project" phrasing restates rather than extends that, so 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 concrete verb+resource: retrieves every pipeline of the CRM project with its stages (id, name, description, kind open/won/lost) plus per-stage deal counts. That is far more specific than the title and clearly separates it from mutation siblings like dosai_create_pipeline/dosai_update_pipeline, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

"Stage ids are needed to create or move a deal" gives a concrete trigger for calling this before dosai_create_deal or dosai_move_deal. It provides clear usage context but no explicit exclusions or naming of alternative read tools (e.g. dosai_get_funnel, dosai_list_deals).

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