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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them with genuinely useful semantics: money in minor units, totals segregated by currency, and the caveat that probabilities are stage/team estimates rather than calibrated predictions or verified revenue. That prevents real misinterpretation of the return payload.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the currency and probability caveats, then the prerequisite. No padding, though the prerequisite could arguably lead if it gates whether the tool is callable at all.

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 seven parameters, 29% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does well on entity and value semantics (money units, currency segregation, probability caveat) but leaves the majority of parameters undocumented, so an agent still cannot confidently use q, attention, limit, or offset. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 only 29% (just scope and workspaceId), so the description carries the burden for q, limit, offset, currency, and attention. It adds nothing about any parameter, and notably omits that totals are split by currency and therefore that the currency filter matters for interpretation.

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+resource: reading CRM opportunities and company lifecycle data from the workspace. This clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like save_opportunity and from get_company/get_workspace, though it does not explicitly acknowledge those near-neighbors.

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?

Gives one real precondition ('Requires the CRM feature'), which is useful gating context. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_company, get_workspace, or list_leads, and gives no exclusions or scope guidance, leaving usage largely implied.

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