opportunities_get_pipelines

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. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—no note on return format, pagination, filtering, or side effects. It simply states the action without elaborating on any behavioral nuances, adding no value beyond what annotations already provide.

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 short (two words), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks any structured information or front-loaded context. While brevity is generally good, this is closer to a placeholder than a useful description, and it fails to convey essential details about the tool's function or output.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is still inadequate. It doesn't explain what pipelines are, what they represent, or what the response contains. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool or interpret results without prior knowledge. The minimal description fails to meet even basic contextual completeness for a straightforward read operation.

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 has 100% description coverage for its only parameter (locationId), including a default behavior note. Per the scoring guide, high schema coverage warrants a baseline of 3 even with no parameter info in the description. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so a 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?

The description 'Get Pipelines' is essentially a tautological restatement of the tool name 'opportunities_get_pipelines'. It fails to clarify what pipelines refer to (e.g., opportunity pipelines in a CRM), their purpose, or how they relate to opportunities. It provides no distinguishing information from other 'get' tools, making it vague and unhelpful.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'opportunities_get_opportunity' or 'opportunities_search_opportunity'. An agent receives zero contextual advice on tool selection.

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