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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe non-mutating read, so the annotation carries the safety burden. The description adds that pagination is cursor-based, which is mild behavioral context, but says nothing about default result size, rate limits, or total-count behavior.

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, front-loaded with the purpose before the capability list and the raw endpoint. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing 'Keap: GET /opportunities' is the least valuable element.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description arguably could hint at the return shape, but for an optional-parameter list tool whose pagination and filtering are fully documented in the schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 every one of the five parameters is already documented in the schema with examples. The description's mention of filtering, ordering, field selection, and cursor pagination merely restates the schema at a higher level, adding no syntax or constraint detail beyond it.

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 sales opportunities (deals) in the pipeline'), with the '(deals)' gloss clarifying domain vocabulary. The plural 'opportunities' plus the sibling keap_get_opportunity makes the read-many vs read-one distinction inferable, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 description implies usage by advertising capability (filtering, ordering, field selection, cursor pagination) but never says when to reach for this tool versus keap_get_opportunity or the other list_* siblings, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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