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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the scoping constraint (over a period) and the unique closed-deal insight, which is useful. It does not, however, disclose pagination, rate limits, or output granularity beyond what the annotations provide.

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, front-loaded with the core summarisation purpose, followed by the unique differentiator. No wasted words; every sentence 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?

The description adequately conveys what the tool produces (opportunity counts, won/lost status, revenue) for a read-only summarisation tool with no output schema. It could improve by noting time-period defaults or the role of pipeline_id, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 75%, with since/until/location_id documented and pipeline_id undocumented. The description does not explain parameter formats or defaults beyond mentioning the time-period concept. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the parameter documentation.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: summarising a sub-account's opportunities over a period, listing what it reports (counts, won/lost, revenue). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like highlevel_create_opportunity and highlevel_update_opportunity by characterising itself as read-only summarisation, though it stops short of naming a specific sibling tool.

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 gives a clear when-to-use: 'use it whenever the question is about booked jobs or revenue rather than leads.' It implicitly contrasts with lead-oriented tools but does not name an alternative or specify exclusions (e.g., when to prefer highlevel_appointments instead).

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