ghl_opportunity_get_pipeline

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

Annotations already declare the operation is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the OAuth scope required (pipelines.readonly), the endpoint and API version, and the fact that the response includes all stages and configuration. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the core retrieval sentence and stays short. The endpoint line includes useful version and scope metadata, though the source-file reference is slightly extraneous; overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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 one-parameter read operation with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned (stages and configuration) and the required OAuth scope. It could mention behavior when the pipeline is not found, but nothing essential for invoking the tool is missing.

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%, with the single parameter documented as 'The unique identifier of the pipeline' and an example value. The description's 'by its ID' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: retrieves a single pipeline by its ID, including stages and configuration. The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from a list operation, but no sibling tool is named, so it falls short of the explicit sibling differentiation required for a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'by its ID', but the description never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghl_pipeline_list or ghl_opportunity_update_pipeline. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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