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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes the scope requirement (opportunities.read), which is valuable, but says nothing about result size, paging behavior, or matching semantics.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the primary search capability, with the auth prerequisite trailing. Nothing is wasted, though the enumeration largely duplicates schema content.

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 7-parameter, zero-required, read-only search tool with fully documented schema and rich annotations, the description plus structured fields give an agent enough to invoke it correctly. Only the absence of paging/return-shape hints (no output schema exists) keeps this below 5.

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%, with limit/offset/order/direction/filters/embed/field all documented in detail, including cursor-vs-numeric paging. The description only re-lists filter dimensions already present in the filters schema, adding no syntax or format detail. 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 (search) and resource (opportunities) and enumerates the searchable dimensions, which makes the retrieval semantics clear. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like sellsy_list_opportunities or the generic sellsy_search, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"Needs opportunities.read" gives a real prerequisite, and the enumerated filter fields imply this is the tool for filtered/query retrieval. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. list_opportunities or generic search, and no statement about how multiple filters combine.

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