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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so navigation safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful boundaries beyond that: it will not refresh opportunities, run AI, or spend credits, which is meaningful for a Copilot cost-sensitive tool. It stops short of documenting return shape or rate/paging limits.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and filtering default, followed by the routing hint and the read-only guarantee. No filler; every sentence carries information.

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 no output schema and only partial param coverage, the description does reasonably well: it describes what returns (plan summaries, priority order), sets the default filter, and clarifies paging. It omits the kind enum meaning and full parameter semantics, so it is slightly incomplete for a 5-param tool.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate more than it does. It clarifies the default-vs-includeResolved filtering behavior and hints at paging ('Page through results'), but says nothing about the kind enum values (on_page/off_page/technical) or the page/limit semantics, leaving real gaps.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List saved Copilot opportunities') plus scope details ('with their saved plan summaries, highest priority first'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_copilot_opportunity, which it frames as the detailed-lookup counterpart.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (get_copilot_opportunity) and the condition that selects it ('for full evidence, brief and tasks'), and states the default filter scope (open/accepted/in-progress) and the paging workflow. Nothing about when to reach for this vs the detail tool is left to inference.

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