crm_assess_pipeline

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

The annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is not a safe read-only operation. The description adds detail about the analysis dimensions (stalled deals, missing next-steps, etc.) but does not state what side effects occur, such as whether the tool writes changes back to the CRM, creates tasks, or otherwise alters pipeline state. This is a gap given the destructive hint.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose and outcome are stated first, followed by concise per-parameter explanations. Every sentence carries useful information with no filler.

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?

With an output schema available, the description does not need to explain return values, and it already states the output is a prioritised action list. The parameter semantics are sufficient and defaults are clear. The main missing element is an explicit note about side effects, but the destructiveHint annotation partially covers that.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by documenting all three parameters in prose: message as free-text objective, owner_email with 'empty = whole team' semantics, and min_amount_usd as a filter threshold. This adds meaning the schema alone does not provide.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('active sales pipeline'), and clearly enumerates what the tool does: flags stalled deals, missing next-steps, optimistic close dates, and stage-fit mismatches, then returns a prioritised action list. This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like list_crm_deals or crm_query_data, which are generic list/query tools.

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 phrase 'Audit your active sales pipeline' establishes a clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent needs a health/quality assessment of the pipeline rather than a raw list or a single-record lookup. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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