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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the shared workspace warning that results include deals from other AIsa callers, and the explicit list of returned fields. This helps agents understand the open-world nature and result shape.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action, filters, pagination, return fields, and the critical shared-workspace warning in three sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what filters are available, pagination, return fields, and the shared workspace caveat. With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could mention sort options or filter parameter names, but these are minor gaps given the schema coverage.

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 documents all three parameters (page, per_page, sort_by_field). The description adds filter semantics (owner, stage, amount, close date) that map to the search behavior, but doesn't detail how these map to the actual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema covers parameter basics.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search deals in this workspace' with specific filter dimensions (owner, stage, amount, close date) and pagination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_apollo_opportunities_opportunity_id (single opportunity lookup) and post_apollo_opportunities (creation) by focusing on search/list behavior.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: when searching deals in the workspace with filters. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the filter and pagination guidance implies the search use case. The shared workspace warning also helps agents understand the context of results.

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