List Lost Reasons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the scope ('available ... for customer service records'), with no mention of pagination behavior, ordering, or whether reasons are user-configurable.

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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise given the documentation burden it carries.

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 read-only lookup tool with only two optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, full annotations, and an output schema to describe return values, the definition is largely complete. The missing piece is usage context relative to siblings, but nothing structurally required is absent.

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 both parameters (limit, response_format) carry their own descriptions with ranges and enum meanings, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline for a fully documented 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 names a specific verb (List) and resource (lost or closing reasons for customer service records) scoped to the HeyMax CRM API, which is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list tools (list_active_pipelines, list_tags, list_events), but the resource noun is specific enough that an agent can tell them apart.

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 on when to call this versus sibling list tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios (e.g., populating a dropdown when closing a service record). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and resource noun.

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