teamleader_lost_reasons_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'List lost reasons for deals' with no mention of pagination, sorting, return format, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimally informative and does not go beyond the literal action.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main action and resource. However, the extreme brevity may sacrifice necessary detail, so it is not perfect.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations, the description is incomplete. A simple list tool may not need extensive context, but pagination behavior and result details are entirely missing. The description is usable but leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the full 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?

The input schema defines two parameters, page and page_size, with only page_size having a description ('max 100'). The tool description provides no additional meaning for these parameters, leaving half of the schema parameters undocumented semantically. The description does not compensate for the gap.

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 ('List') and identifies the resource ('lost reasons for deals'), making the tool's primary function clear. However, it does not differentiate this from other list tools among the many siblings, so it is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it lists, with no context about typical use cases or relationships to other deal-related tools like 'teamleader_list_deals' or 'teamleader_deal_phases_list'.

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