get_account_stages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns a list of account stages, without mentioning if this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds return information in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and output without any wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool does and the return type, but for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like safety or usage notes to be fully 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on the output. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain non-existent inputs.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with the verb 'Get' and resource 'available account/company stages', making it understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_contact_stages' or 'get_available_fields', which have similar naming patterns but target different resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain if this is for retrieving metadata vs. actual data, or how it relates to siblings like 'get_contact_stages' or 'deals_list'. The description lacks any context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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