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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., response format, authorization, or side effects) beyond a redundant 'read-only' phrase, so it contributes minimal value here.

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 a single ten-word sentence with no filler. The main verb and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 operation with one required parameter)Skip, this is mostly adequate, but 'workflow view' is undefined and the optional request_id lacks any semantic hint. With no output schema, the description also does not mention return content, leaving room for ambiguity.

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%, and the description clarifies that opportunity_id is the 'public id', partially compensating for the missing parameter documentation. However, request_id is left completely unexplained, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 ('Read') and resource ('opportunity workflow view') with an identifier ('by public id'), clearly indicating a single-object read operation. It is differentiated from the list and next_action siblings in name and scope, though 'workflow view' is not fully explained.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yardstick_opportunities_list or yardstick_opportunities_next_action. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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