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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: status and sort enums, per-domain result mapping in request order, the error fallback shape {domain, error, data: []}, and per-domain pagination semantics. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 description is front-loaded with a one-sentence summary followed by clearly labeled STATUS, SORT, RETURNS, and PAGINATION blocks. It is scannable, dense with useful information, and contains no filler.

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 no output schema, the description does well to define the top-level return contract, error entries, and pagination behavior. It still leaves some ambiguity around date range parameter semantics and the exact fields inside each opportunity entry, which matters for a seven-parameter tool without an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that page and size apply per domain and recommending small sequential pages, which is not in the schema. However, this recommendation conflicts with the schema's size description ('Raise it to pull the full set in one call'), making the added guidance less reliable.

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 opens with 'Get opportunities for domain(s) with status filtering and pagination,' naming a specific read resource and scope. It is clear and distinct enough to identify the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby insight/stat tools like get_account_summary_insights.

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 intended use is implied: an agent should call this when it needs opportunities for specific domains with optional status/sort/pagination. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer, so the usage signal is present but not fully developed.

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