opportunities_get_lost_reason

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

While the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) provide basic behavioral info, the description adds nothing beyond them. It doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or any edge cases. Since the description adds no extra behavioral context, it falls short even with annotations lowering the burden.

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?

The description is extremely concise but at the cost of substance. It lacks any explanatory content, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise. There is no structure beyond a single phrase, and it doesn't front-load any useful 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 tool with 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any practical usage context. An agent cannot correctly call this tool based on the description alone.

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?

The schema descriptions cover all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the description. The description adds no parameter semantics, but since the schema is comprehensive, it doesn't need to compensate. This score reflects the schema's sufficiency rather than the description's contribution.

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 is 'Get lost reason', which essentially restates the tool name without adding any context. It doesn't specify that this relates to opportunities, what a lost reason is, or how it differs from other opportunity-related tools. It is a tautology with no informative content.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where it applies. An agent has zero information on when to invoke it, making it impossible to select appropriately based on the description alone.

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