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

The description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic create action. Since annotations are absent, it should disclose aspects like required fields (only 'name' per schema), the fact that other fields are optional, and what the response contains; none are mentioned. There is also no mention of authorization, side effects, or error conditions, so the agent is left with minimal insight into the tool's runtime behavior.

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, abridged sentence with no redundant words, achieving high conciseness. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, so it is easy to scan. The extreme brevity sacrifices detail, but conciseness itself is excellent.

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 create tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It does not mention the required 'name' field, what happens on success (e.g., return value), or how the various optional contact/pipeline fields are used. The agent would need to rely solely on the schema and siblings, making the description incomplete for safe invocation.

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 already provides descriptions for all 11 parameters, so the description adds no additional meaning. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., pipeline_id vs pipeline_stage_id) or any defaults. However, with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'a new CRM deal (lead)', clearly distinguishing this from sibling update/delete/list tools for leads and other entities. It also explicitly equates deal and lead, which removes ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_lead or create_task. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context. This fails to convey conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and resource, omitting any details about required fields, side effects, permissions, or response behavior. This is a tautology of the tool name.

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 extremely short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It provides no structure or additional context, similar to a restatement of the tool name, which offers minimal value.

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 tool has 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain what a task is, how it relates to other entities, what the creation process entails, or what the response looks like. The description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself adds no parameter information. The schema already documents each parameter's meaning and format, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Create a new task' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a creation operation for tasks. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_lead by naming the resource 'task', though it lacks additional detail about task semantics.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships with other tools like update_task or list_tasks. The description is purely imperative with no context.

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

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 only says 'Delete a CRM deal (lead) by ID' without mentioning irreversibility, side effects on related entities, permission requirements, or return behavior. The description adds no transparency beyond what the tool name already indicates.

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 that states the action and target without any redundant or extraneous information. It is highly efficient and clearly structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description lacks important context for a destructive operation. It does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent or soft, cascading behavior, expected response format, or any safety considerations. Given that no annotations exist, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 fully covers the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, including a description 'Lead ID to delete'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('CRM deal (lead)') with a specific method ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_lead and get_lead, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, the verb 'delete' and the resource context imply its usage in the CRUD lifecycle, though this is not explicitly stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as irreversibility, potential side effects, or permission requirements. 'Delete' implies mutation, but the description does not warn that the task is permanently removed or if related data is affected.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains only essential 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is still incomplete. It does not mention the return value, error behavior, or that deletion is permanent. Since there are no annotations to supplement this, the description leaves important operational details unclear.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter 'id' with its description 'Task ID to delete', so the schema provides complete coverage. The description adds no new semantics beyond the schema, but that is acceptable since the schema is clear.

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 'Delete a task by ID' uses a clear verb and resource, directly indicating the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_task, update_task, and create_task by explicitly stating the delete operation.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description only states what the tool does without indicating when to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. For a destructive operation, there is no warning or context about when deletion is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the operation but doesn't disclose return format, error behavior (e.g., what happens for non-existent ID), permissions required, or confirm the operation is read-only. The name 'get' suggests safety but isn't stated.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. It omits nothing essential for stating the basic operation.

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 single-parameter read operation, the description covers the core purpose but lacks explicit information about the return value or exception handling. Given no output schema exists, a note about returning the lead object or 404 behavior would improve completeness.

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 already documents the 'id' parameter with type and description (Lead ID), achieving 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' adds no further semantic detail about the parameter.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('CRM deal (lead)'), and the lookup mechanism ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_leads (plural) and get_task (different resource).

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 implies use for fetching a single lead by ID, but doesn't explicitly contrast with list_leads for retrieving all leads or search_users for finding leads. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must convey behavioral context. 'Get a task by ID' clearly implies a read-only retrieval action and does not contradict any structured data, but it does not disclose what happens if the task is not found, error behavior, or return format specifics. It is a minimal disclosure that is not misleading but lacks deeper context.

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 front-loads the key action and resource, earning every character of its length.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the essential usage. It clearly states what the tool does and what input it takes; the return value (the task) is self-evident from the action 'Get a task'.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'id' with type and description 'Task ID', and the schema coverage is 100%. The description merely repeats 'by ID' without adding any new information about the parameter's semantics, such as format, constraints, or behavior when invalid.

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 'Get a task by ID' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read operation for a single task by its ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks (listing), create_task, update_task, and delete_task.

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 implies usage when a task ID is known and a single task is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like list_tasks or get_lead. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so the guidance is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention potential errors, unauthorized access, rate limits, or what 'detailed information' entails beyond the fact that an ID is required. This lack of additional context leaves the agent with only the basic implied safety of a read operation.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is useful, and there is no superfluous information or structural issue.

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 simplicity of a single-parameter get-by-ID operation, the description plus schema is largely sufficient for invocation. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the return structure or content beyond 'detailed information,' which is vague. For an agent, this is minimally acceptable but leaves some ambiguity about what the tool actually returns.

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 has 100% description coverage and a single 'id' parameter with a clear description. The description's phrase 'by ID' adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already states. Per the calibration, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and there is no extra semantic contribution from the description.

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 clearly states the action (Get) and resource (detailed information about a user) with the required key (by ID). It is distinct from sibling get_* tools because the resource is a user, and it is distinguished from search_users by the explicit ID-based lookup. However, 'detailed information' is somewhat vague and could be more specific about what fields are included.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_users. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios. The description simply states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states 'List', implying a read operation, but fails to mention pagination details, response format, filtering semantics, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other behavioral context.

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, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant 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 no output schema and low complexity, the description is adequate but not thorough. It omits behavioral details like pagination behavior and possible response structure, but the schema covers parameters and the purpose is clear.

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 already describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by noting filters are 'optional', but does not elaborate on parameter nuances or relationships beyond the schema.

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 resource ('CRM deals (leads)'), clearly distinguishing it from singular tools like get_lead and from other list tools like list_pipelines or list_tasks.

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 clearly indicates the tool's purpose and the presence of optional filters, providing enough context for basic use. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_lead for a single lead or list_tasks for tasks.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'List all'—which duplicates the purpose. It doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or whether archived pipelines are included. The behavioral insight is minimal.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and resource. No wasted words, perfectly concise for its purpose.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description fully covers the tool's function. It adds CRM context to the name and leaves no gaps for a simple list operation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists, which is entirely appropriate. It correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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') with a clear resource and scope ('all CRM sales pipelines'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_pipeline_stages, list_workflows, and list_leads by naming the exact CRM entity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_pipeline_stages, list_workflows). The description simply states what it does without exclusions or preferred contexts.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-only list operation and mentions the optional filter, but it does not specify default behavior (e.g., whether all stages are returned when no filter is given) or response format. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but lacks explicit detail.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no redundant words. Every word earns its place, making it optimally concise.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and filter option. It could explicitly state the unfiltered behavior (all stages), but the phrase 'optionally filtered by pipeline' aligns with expectations, making it sufficiently complete for this tool.

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 already provides a 100% description of the single parameter (pipeline_id: 'Filter by pipeline ID'). The tool description adds only 'optionally' which mirrors the schema's required-optional distinction, adding little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states a specific action ('List') and resource ('pipeline stages'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'list_workflow_stages', but the resource name is specific enough that the purpose is clear.

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 implies usage is when you need to retrieve pipeline stages, and the optional filter by pipeline is a clear pointer. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as list_pipelines or list_workflow_stages, so usage context is only implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the default non-archived behavior, the meaning of each status value, and how to retrieve archived tasks. It does not discuss pagination or response format, but these are minor gaps for a list 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections for status and type values. It front-loads the main purpose and default behavior, and every sentence provides useful information without redundancy.

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 tool with 10 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical semantics: status meaning, type meaning, and archive behavior. It omits pagination details (e.g., page size), but this is not essential for correct invocation.

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 covers all 10 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds usage context like 'To find tasks truly in progress use status=3' but largely restates the schema's parameter descriptions rather than adding new semantic depth.

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 starts with 'List tasks with optional filters', providing a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (get_task, update_task, delete_task) by focusing on listing and further specifies the default non-archived scope.

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 gives clear context on when to use filters: explains status values, archive_status behavior, and provides explicit queries for 'truly in progress' and 'all incomplete tasks'. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying 'List all' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential pagination limits, required permissions, or the structure of the returned data. This adds no behavioral context beyond what the function name already conveys.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It is perfectly concise for a tool that takes no parameters and performs a straightforward listing operation.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate: it states that all workflows will be listed. However, it lacks any detail about the returned data structure or how this tool relates to list_workflow_stages, leaving some ambiguity with 'task workflows'. It is complete enough for a basic list, but not richly contextual.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's 'all' is consistent with the empty input schema, signaling that no filters apply. There is no additional parameter information needed.

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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'workflows', making the action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_workflow_stages, but the phrase 'all task workflows' implies the full set of workflows. The qualifier 'task' introduces slight ambiguity, but the core purpose is evident.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_tasks or list_pipelines. It does not mention any contextual scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and minimal description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'List workflow stages' without disclosing behavior such as returned fields, pagination, ordering, or whether all stages are returned when no filter is given. The read-only nature is implied by 'list' but not explicit, and no side-effect or permission context is provided.

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 entire description is a single sentence that communicates the core action and filter option clearly. No filler or redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is functional but minimal. It doesn't explicitly state the return value (a list of workflow stages) or distinguish from pipeline stages, which could confuse an agent. However, the low complexity reduces the need for more detail.

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 100% and the workflow_id parameter is already described as 'Filter by workflow ID'. The description adds only the phrase 'optionally filtered by workflow', which duplicates the schema and adds no new semantic detail.

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 the specific verb 'list' and names the resource 'workflow stages', with an optional filter. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_workflows (which lists workflows) and list_pipeline_stages (which lists pipeline stages), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pipeline_stages or list_workflows. The only context is the optional workflow filter, which implies usage when stages of a specific workflow are needed, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns id, name, and username (email), which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether it returns one or multiple matches, what happens on no results, or any pagination/limits. This is a notable gap for a search tool, though the core return behavior is at least partially disclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource ('Search users'), then adds return fields and usage guidance. Every phrase serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the result. It does not describe edge cases like empty results or multiple matches, but given the low complexity, the description is sufficient for most AI agent invocations.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with the parameter 'query' described as 'Name or email to search for (case-insensitive partial match).' The tool description simply restates 'by name or email' without adding new syntax or format details. Since the schema already handles parameter semantics, the description adds no additional value beyond the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search users by name or email.' It specifies the resource (users) and the action (search), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on search rather than direct retrieval (e.g., get_user). It also clarifies the output fields, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find users by name or email. It also teaches how to apply the result (use id as responsible_id for tasks or assignee_id for deals), implying a practical use case. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as when you already have the user ID (where get_user might be more appropriate), so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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

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 says 'update' without explaining side effects, partial update semantics, required permissions, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately brief and front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

Despite full schema coverage, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. For a tool with 15 parameters and no annotations or output schema, this one-line description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly in all situations.

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 each parameter already described in the schema. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states 'Update an existing CRM deal (lead)' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like create_lead, delete_lead, and get_lead. It precisely communicates the tool's primary function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_lead or delete_lead. There is no mention of typical scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool's name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Update an existing task' without indicating whether it supports partial updates, what it returns, side effects, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward operation.

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?

The tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to provide essential context about update behavior, return values, or typical use cases. The agent is left with only the schema, which documents parameter types but not the overall operation context.

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 input schema already documents all 12 parameters with useful details like status and rating scales. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('existing task'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task and delete_task. It unambiguously states the action and target.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like update_lead or create_task. The description only states the general function without mentioning prerequisite conditions, context, or exclusions.

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