get_pipeline_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via GET and mentions response fields, which is good. However, it could explicitly state idempotency or that the tool is safe to call multiple times without side effects. Still, the intent is clear enough.

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 efficient: it starts with the core purpose, then gives usage context, and ends with parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes to understanding 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?

Given that an output schema exists (not shown but referenced), the description need not detail return values. It already mentions key fields. For the intended workflow (fetch reasons, select one, update lead), the description is completely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that pipeline_id comes from the lead's current pipeline or from lookup_pipelines, providing practical context for using the parameter. This adds significant value 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 clearly states the tool returns full pipeline details (stages, unqualifiedReasons, lostReasons) by ID, with the HTTP method. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pipeline_stages or lookup_pipelines by specifying exactly what data is returned.

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 when to call this tool ('when moving a lead to Closed Lost or Closed Unqualified'), how to use the result (present reasons to user, ask for a pick), and the follow-up action (call update_lead with the exact string). This is comprehensive guidance.

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