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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'Requires a master API key' — which is an auth requirement not present in the annotations, but it discloses nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or why the tool is named 'search' when it claims to return all deals.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, but the injected aisa-pricing boilerplate roughly doubles the length with content irrelevant to tool selection. The description is not bloated by the author's own prose, but the effective payload carries dead weight.

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?

With rich annotations and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers the auth requirement. However, for a 'search'-named list endpoint over deals, it omits any hint of scope (all deals in the workspace?), paging expectations, or filtering limits, leaving gaps an agent must discover by trial.

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 coverage is 100%, so page, per_page, and sort_by_field are already documented in the schema. The description adds no paging or sort semantics of its own, 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 all deals (opportunities)'), which distinguishes it from the single-deal sibling get_apollo_opportunities_opportunity_id and from the write sibling post_apollo_opportunities. It does not call out the 'search' nature implied by its name or name any alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites beyond the API key, and no routing to alternatives such as the opportunity-id getter or the account/contact search siblings. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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