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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'GET /rest/opportunities'. It also adds behavioral context about pagination (cursor-based), raw filter/order_by support, and relation depth—traits not fully captured by annotations alone. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only relevant technical details. No redundant words or filler.

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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain the return shape and pagination mechanics. It mentions cursor pagination but does not describe the response structure (e.g., records array, pageInfo). Given the complexity of raw filters and relation depth, the description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter description coverage, with each parameter's format and constraints documented. The description adds only a high-level summary (e.g., 'cursor pagination', 'raw filter/order_by') that doesn't meaningfully enhance the schema semantics. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 starts with 'List/filter opportunities (deals)' which clearly states the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling list tools for other entities like companies, people, and tasks. The additional capabilities (cursor pagination, raw filter/order_by, relation depth) further specify the tool's scope.

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 makes it clear this is the tool for listing/filtering opportunities, and the mention of pagination and raw filters implies when you need those features. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., twenty_get_opportunity for a single record), but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings.

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