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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two things an agent most needs: the side effect is bounded ('No task or payment changes') and authentication is required. It stops short of stating reversibility guarantees, idempotency, or what the response contains, which is a smaller residual gap for a status flip.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by side-effect scope and prerequisites. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant with the name.

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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description gives an adequate overview but omits the enum-to-action mapping, ownership/permission failure modes, and any confirmation of what changes on success. It is serviceable but not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by implying that the operation targets an opportunity the account owns and that the two actions map to the status field. However, it never explicitly ties 'id' to the opportunity UUID nor explains that the enum value 'proposed' is what 'reopen' sets – a non-obvious mapping left entirely to the schema.

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 pair (dismiss/reopen), the resource (private opportunity), and the ownership scope (owned by your account). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as record_work_opportunity or list_work_opportunities, which record and enumerate rather than change state.

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 implies the two usage modes (dismiss vs reopen) but never says when to choose this tool over alternatives like record_work_opportunity or how to recover from a mistaken dismissal beyond reopening. The 'Requires API key' note is a prerequisite, which is useful, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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