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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'visible to the current principal' scoping detail, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose whether the result is paginated, what the response shape is, or whether the list is ordered. With annotations covering the core safety traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes the key scoping qualifier. There is zero waste; every word earns its place. The description is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not clarify what 'opportunity workflow views' means, whether the result is paginated, or how the three parameters interact. The lack of an output schema means the agent has no information about the return shape, but for a list tool this is a moderate gap rather than a critical one.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning, but it does not mention limit, request_id, or starting_after at all. The parameter names themselves are fairly self-explanatory (limit, starting_after are common pagination parameters), and the schema provides type and constraints. The description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already implies, so the baseline 3 for a simple list tool is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('opportunity workflow views') and adds a scoping qualifier ('visible to the current principal'). It is clear enough to distinguish from the sibling tools like yardstick_opportunities_read and yardstick_opportunities_next_action, though it does not explicitly name them. The phrase 'workflow views' is slightly ambiguous—it could mean a list of views rather than a list of opportunities—but the title 'List opportunities' anchors the intended meaning.

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 implies a read-only listing use case and the 'visible to the current principal' qualifier gives some context about scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like yardstick_opportunities_read or yardstick_opportunities_next_action. There is no mention of pagination usage or when the limit/starting_after parameters should be used. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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