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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=true, so the description must carry most of the behavioral burden. It adds that Copper itself enforces name and primary_contact_id, but says nothing about permissions, side effects, duplicate handling, or what happens to unset fields.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation front-loaded, followed by the API endpoint; no filler or repetition.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description omits what is returned (e.g., the new opportunity id) and any post-creation notes, leaving an agent unsure how to chain follow-up calls.

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% and every parameter is described in the schema, so the description's restatement of the two required fields adds little. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Create a new opportunity (deal)') and reinforces it with the underlying REST call. It is clearly distinguishable from the other copper_create_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tools (lead vs. opportunity).

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 create an opportunity versus a lead or company, nor any prerequisite or ordering advice (e.g., whether the contact/company must already exist). The required-field note is a constraint, not usage guidance.

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