Get Pipeline Items For Contact

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include all pipeline item fields, that items span all pipelines, and that count_only=true avoids returning the full result set. This goes beyond a simple operation statement. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior, but for a read-only retrieval tool the provided behavioral notes are useful.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the core action, the full-data benefit, and the count_only tip. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and no words are wasted. The formatting with RETURNS FULL DATA is slightly emphatic but does not reduce conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (full data across all pipelines) and a key usage variant (count_only). The pagination parameters are documented in the input schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It does not mention edge cases like empty results, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of context for count_only ('accurate counts without returning the full result set') but the schema already explains that parameter well. No additional meaning is added for contact_id, page, or max_results, so it stays at 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 action ('Retrieve all pipeline items') and the resource ('for a specific contact'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling tool get_pipeline_item by noting that full data is returned so no follow-up call is needed. The scope (across all pipelines) is also 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 provides clear usage context: it is for retrieving pipeline items for a specific contact, and it notes that get_pipeline_item is unnecessary because full data is returned. It also advises using count_only=true for accurate counts. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like search_pipeline_items or state when not to use it, so it falls 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.