list_prospect_pools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does declare 'Read-only' plus what the response contains (ordered prospect_stages). It omits any note on pagination semantics or auth, though those are partly covered by the schema's paginate/cursor params.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the read-only note and the two practical reasons to call it. No redundant or filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description usefully flags the prospect_stages field. Complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it, with only minor gaps around sibling routing and pagination behavior.

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 100%, so the four optional params (active, cursor, paginate, per_page) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all prospect pools with their stages') and clarifies the payload includes ordered stages. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the singular get_prospect_pool, but never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Gives a concrete use case: resolve pool names to IDs for add_prospect and pick a starting stage. This is clear routing guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming get_prospect_pool as the alternative for a single pool.

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