get_contact_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 what the tool returns ('List of contact stages') but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear returns statement. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be slightly improved for efficiency.

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 an output schema (which should cover return values) and no parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on how contact stages fit into pipeline management or relate to other tools, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's role in the broader system.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids redundancy, earning a high baseline score for this context.

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 'Get available contact stages for pipeline management,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_account_stages' or 'get_available_fields,' which might have overlapping or related functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for pipeline management, or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'contacts_search' or 'deal_create,' leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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