list_lost_reasons

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds that the set is account-configured (dynamic) and returns id and name. This adds useful context beyond annotations, but no additional behavioral details are needed.

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 long, immediately states the main purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value: what the tool does, what it returns, and why to use it.

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 simple nature of the tool (list with pagination) and no output schema, the description covers the return format (id and name) and the usage context. It could mention pagination defaults or behavior when no reasons are configured, but the schema partially covers pagination.

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 50% (page and perPage parameters), but the description does not mention either parameter or their purpose. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names which may be ambiguous.

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 'List all configured opportunity-loss reasons', provides examples, and explains the resource's purpose (discovering valid ids for update_opportunity). It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by its specific focus on lost reasons.

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 explicit guidance: 'call this to discover valid ids before referencing a lostReason in update_opportunity when closing a deal as lost'. It provides context on when to use the tool, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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