List pitches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real behavioral context on top: sensitive calendar feed links are gated behind include_contact_details and the Pitchup feed carries guests' contact details. It still doesn't note pagination or the max_results ceiling behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences that front-load what the tool returns before the optional filters and the data-sensitivity conditional. The enumerated field list is a little packed, but nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 four-parameter, output-schema-less read tool, the definition covers the returned fields, the filtering options, and the contact-detail gating. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/max_results semantics are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 75%, and the description reinforces the two non-obvious filters: external_id selects a single pitch, pitch_type_id narrows by type, and include_contact_details unlocks feed links. Only max_results is left unexplained, and it is self-evident given its name and bounds.

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 ('Individual pitches (units)') and enumerates the returned attributes (pitch type, name, bookability, priority, external ID, sync status), which implicitly separates it from siblings like list_pitch_types and get_pitch_type. It never names those siblings explicitly, so a 5 is not warranted.

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 describes two optional filtering modes ('only one pitch type, or the pitch with a given external_id') and the conditional on include_contact_details, which implies usage. It gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing between this and sibling list tools such as list_pitch_types or list_campsites.

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