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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing post-write effects: the entry is scored, ranked, and matched to a Blueprint. It does not explain scoring inputs, whether adding is idempotent, or what happens when blueprint_key is supplied.

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 that front-loads the action and then the consequence. No wasted words, though the semicolon clause packs two ideas that could be split for clarity.

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?

With a fully documented schema, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what is needed: what gets added and what the system does with it (score/rank/match). It could say more about the returned opportunity, but the essential call context is present.

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 100%, so all 9 parameters including the 1–4 scales, hourly_cost defaulting, and blueprint_key's 'omit = best match' behavior are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

Names a specific verb (Add) and resource (an opportunity / workflow to the Opportunity Map), and the second clause clarifies what the operation does to it. It is distinguishable from siblings like update_opportunity and build_opportunity, though it never names them.

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 phrase 'a workflow someone would like help with' implies the triggering context for adding a new opportunity, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus build_opportunity (turn it into something) or update_opportunity (change an existing one). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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