get_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context on top: requires an API key, returns the whole board without pagination, lists all possible stages, and warns that money is in cents requiring division by 100. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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, followed by usage guidance and key operational details. Every sentence adds value: board semantics, alternative tool guidance, auth requirement, stage list, and currency units. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the return shape (board grouped by stage with revenue totals), the stage enum, money unit quirks, and the lack of pagination. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result without further guessing.

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 only parameter workspaceId is already fully described in the schema as 'Optional workspace UUID to filter pipeline,' so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, keeping this at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 gets the sales pipeline as a board, grouping deals by stage with revenue totals. It distinguishes itself from the sibling list_deals by explicitly describing this as the board view versus the flat list view.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use for 'how does the pipeline look' questions and stage-by-stage review. It also names the alternative list_deals for filtering or paging, explaining this tool returns the whole board.

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