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

With readOnlyHint already declaring the safe-read profile, the description still adds real behavioral context: the 25-record page cap, the exact fields covered by free-text search, the filtermode set, the omission of line items, and the underlying GET /opportunities endpoint. It stops short of describing pagination traversal beyond the cap.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then search scope, filtermode values, sibling routing, and the page cap — each sentence carries information. It is fairly dense, but nothing is redundant enough to cut materially.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers what an opportunity is, what comes back, the page limit, and where line items live. The only real gap is guidance on the nested 'filters' query-engine object and the include/view_id interactions.

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 page, sort, search, filters, include, view_id, per_page and filtermode are all self-documented. The description largely restates the search fields and filtermode examples already in the schema, adding only the page-size cap; the complex nested 'filters' predicate object gets no explanation beyond what the schema provides.

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 and then defines the domain object ('enquiries, drafts, quotations and orders for a rental job') along with the fields returned (dates, state, charge totals). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools that carry line items.

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?

Explicitly routes line-item needs to current_rms_get_opportunity or current_rms_list_opportunity_items, which is a clear alternative-naming exclusion. It also enumerates useful filtermode values, but does not say when to prefer this list over siblings such as list_projects or list_invoices.

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