List pipelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds the useful fact that the output includes stages and that the tool is a discovery aid. However, it does not disclose any potential pagination, limits, or ordering behavior, which would be helpful for a list tool. With annotations covering the read-only aspect, this is adequate but not enriched.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The core function is front-loaded, and the usage purpose is given immediately after. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 one optional param and safe read annotations, the description gives enough: it states what is returned and why to use it. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of pipelineId and pipelineStageId discovery. Nothing critical about correct invocation is missing, though a hint about response structure would make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%—the only parameter locationId is well described with a default and explanation. The tool description's phrase 'for a location' merely echoes the schema. It adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List'), a precise resource ('opportunity pipelines and their stages'), and the scope ('for a location'). It also names the practical purpose ('discover pipelineId and pipelineStageId values needed by other tools'), which clearly differentiates it from any sibling tool—there is no other pipeline-listing sibling.

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 the agent when to use the tool: when pipelineId and pipelineStageId values are needed by other tools. It gives clear context (for a location) but does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives. Since no sibling covers pipelines, the guidance is sufficient.

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