teamleader_list_lost_reasons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' strongly implies a read-only operation, and stating the purpose adds some context. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, authentication, or whether the list is scoped by pipeline/deal phase. These are minor gaps for a simple lookup tool.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, followed immediately by the practical use case. Every clause contributes necessary information.

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 list tool with two optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what it lists and why it is used, including the key output field (reason_id). It does not describe the full response shape or pagination behavior, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both page and page_size documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a distinct resource ('lost reasons'), a scope ('for deals'), and the downstream purpose ('find reason_id when marking a deal as lost'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_deal_phases and list_deal_sources, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when marking a deal as lost and needing a reason_id. It does not name alternative tools or give exclusions, but the use-case framing gives clear enough context for a simple reference-list tool.

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