get-default-pipeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the REST method/path and the sales:read scope, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose what 'default' resolves to, possible empty/error behavior, or response shape; there is no contradiction.

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 sentence contains the action, resource, endpoint, and scope with no filler. Everything is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read-only fetch, the description is nearly complete: it states what is fetched, the endpoint, and the required scope. The only gaps are explicit differentiation from sibling pipeline tools and a note about return shape, both minor at this complexity level.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers semantics and there is nothing for the description to add. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description includes endpoint/scope context that supports correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('team default sales pipeline'), and includes the exact endpoint and auth scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like get-pipeline and list-pipelines without requiring the agent to open schemas.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus list-pipelines or get-pipeline, and no alternatives are named. The phrase 'team default' implies the intended use case, but the description leaves the choice to inference.

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