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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description usefully adds an auth prerequisite ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'), which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not cover pagination or result limits, but with annotations carrying the safety profile a 4 is warranted.

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?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the second half ('A new opportunity appears under the New tab; in the app an opportunity can be marked won or lost') is UI trivia that does not help an agent invoke the tool. It is not bloated, but not 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?

For a two-param, no-output-schema list tool with safety annotations, the description covers purpose and auth adequately. It omits pagination behavior and default stage handling, which an agent listing large opportunity sets would want, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 100%, so both page and stage are already documented, including the enum values. The description's note that an opportunity 'can be marked won or lost' loosely reinforces the stage enum but adds no format or default detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 states a clear resource (opportunities) and describes what each contains (customer, service type, estimate-sent flag), and says it returns them from the Opportunities page. It is distinguishable from siblings like kickserv_list_jobs or kickserv_list_customers, though it never uses the verb 'list' explicitly and does not name a contrasting sibling.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions. The mention of the 'New tab' and that opportunities 'can be marked won or lost' is context about the domain, not a when-to-use condition, so the agent gets no routing help.

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