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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one addition is the field list returned (customer, stage, score, budget, expected sale date), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about pagination, result size, or empty-result behavior.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise: no verb, no front-loaded statement of the operation. The field list consumes the whole budget without routing or behavioral content.

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 paginated list tool with a cursor parameter and no output schema, the description should at minimum mention that results are paged/limited and that search narrows the set. Neither is stated, so the agent lacks the information needed to call it repeatedly and correctly.

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 67% — cursor and search are documented in the schema, limit is not. The description contributes nothing about parameters (notably never mentions that results are limited or paged), so the undocumented limit and the pagination contract are left to inference. Baseline-adjacent score given most parameters are covered by 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?

The description is a noun phrase naming the resource ('Sales opportunities') plus the fields it carries, which is enough to infer a listing operation, but it never states a verb and gives no differentiation from siblings like get_opportunity (single item) or list_leads (adjacent resource). An agent could reasonably confuse it with get_opportunity based on the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of paging, no mention of when to choose this over get_opportunity for a single record, and no note that search/cursor select a subset. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

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