List loss reasons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds that the reasons are 'configured in the account', providing context that these are account-level settings. It does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or response structure, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate.

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 front-loads the action and resource. There is no wasted verbosity or redundant information, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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 optional pagination parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but omits details about pagination behavior and response format. Annotations provide safety context, but an agent might still wonder what fields are returned or whether all results are returned in one call. Overall, it is minimally viable but lacks some helpful 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters (page, limit). It does not mention pagination or explain the parameters. While the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, leaving a clear gap for an agent unfamiliar with Kommo's pagination conventions.

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 is specific: 'List all lead loss reasons configured in the account.' It clearly states the verb (list), resource (loss reasons), and scope (all, account-level). This differentiates it from sibling kommo_leads_loss_reasons_get, which presumably retrieves a single reason, though the alternative is not explicitly named.

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: use this tool to retrieve all loss reasons. It does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, such as the 'get' variant for a specific reason. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, but the simple nature of the tool makes the context fairly clear.

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