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

With readOnlyHint=true already covering safety, the description adds useful behavioral context: it supports filtering, ordering, field selection, and cursor pagination, and it identifies the underlying HTTP API. It does not disclose response envelope details, but none are required for a simple read-only list operation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by capability summary and endpoint reference. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 read-only list operation with no output schema and a simple parameter set, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool lists, the endpoint, and the key interaction patterns. It could mention that results are paginated, but that is already implied by 'cursor pagination' and explicitly covered in the page_token parameter.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds a general summary of capabilities ('filtering, ordering, field selection, cursor pagination') that maps to the parameters, but does not add meaningfully beyond the existing parameter descriptions.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List sales opportunities (deals) in the pipeline.' It names the exact endpoint and differentiates the operation from sibling single-item tools like keap_get_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?

The description clearly indicates this tool is for listing pipeline opportunities and mentions supported capabilities like filtering, ordering, and pagination. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for single-record lookups, but the verb 'list' and endpoint provide sufficient context.

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