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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the search-scope fields and the filtermode default, but says nothing about pagination behavior, result size, or what the listing returns, which are relevant for a 7-parameter list endpoint.

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 compact sentences plus an endpoint reference; the core purpose and the search/filtermode facts are front-loaded with no filler. The terse 'filtermode: active (default), inactive, all' fragment is slightly telegraphic but efficient.

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 list tool with readOnly annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essentials, but it omits any mention of pagination (page/per_page/sort) and the filters passthrough, which are significant given 7 parameters and a nested filters object. It is adequate rather than 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 the schema already documents every parameter in detail, including examples for filters and sort. The only genuine addition is the 'active (default)' value for filtermode, since the enum description does not state the default; the search explanation merely repeats the schema wording.

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 ('List projects') and then defines the domain concept as 'groups of related opportunities for one customer or event', which meaningfully distinguishes it from the sibling current_rms_list_opportunities. It stops short of naming any alternative tool for comparison.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource definition and the filtermode default, so an agent can infer this is the entry point for browsing projects. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to siblings such as list_opportunities, so guidance remains at the minimum-viable level.

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