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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the required permission scope ('Needs opportunities.read'), but says nothing about default page size behavior, result caps, or what a page contains.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by the prerequisite. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic about the exact scope string format.

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 six-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers the essential permission prerequisite and acknowledges paging, which is the minimum an agent needs. It leaves the relationship to the search sibling and the shape of returned pages unaddressed.

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 explains embed, field, limit, order, offset, and direction in detail. The description only alludes to 'paging' generically and adds no syntax or defaults beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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') plus the paging behavior, which clearly separates it from get_ and create_ siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sellsy_search_opportunities, which reads as a very similar operation.

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 mention of paging and the required scope gives implied usage context, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over sellsy_search_opportunities or how to switch between them. The agent must infer the choice.

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