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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=true and a title, so the description should carry more of the behavioral burden. It does add useful context about the created states and that line items are handled outside this tool, but says nothing about permissions, whether the created job is immediately visible, or what is returned on success.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and required parameter, with no filler. The trailing 'Current RMS: POST /opportunities' is mildly redundant but harmless context.

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?

Given a 22-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to invoke it correctly (required store_id, key customer/date fields, state options). The main gap is that with no output schema, it does not indicate what the call returns (e.g., the new opportunity id).

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 the schema already documents all 22 parameters in detail, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces a few key fields (store_id required, member_id as customer, starts_at/ends_at as job dates) but adds little that the schema does not already say.

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 an opportunity') and clarifies the domain term with an alias ('a rental job'), plus the selectable initial states. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like current_rms_get_opportunity, current_rms_list_opportunities, and current_rms_update_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?

Gives concrete guidance: store_id is required and points to current_rms_list_stores for lookup, and it names member_id and starts_at/ends_at as the fields to set for customer and dates. It also signals scope boundaries ('Line items are added in Current RMS'), though it never states explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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