search_calls_by_opportunity

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the prerequisite of CRM integration and the fact that non-linked calls won't match, which is a behavioral limitation not implied by the schema. It does not contradict the annotations and adds useful context about matching semantics.

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, then immediately covers prerequisites and parameter usage. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of schema details.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context: what it finds, the required integration, and parameter relationships. It omits pagination and workspace filtering details, but those are adequately described in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for this complexity.

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 schema has high coverage (88%) and already describes each parameter individually. The description adds critical relational semantics by stating 'Provide opportunityIds OR opportunityNames (or both)', which clarifies the mutual exclusivity that is not evident from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb 'Find' and clearly identifies the resource 'calls' filtered by 'CRM Opportunities' via ID or name substring. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_calls_by_account by focusing on opportunities, and the mention of 'calls without CRM linkage will not match' adds operational context.

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?

It states a clear prerequisite ('Requires Gong-CRM integration') and the matching condition ('calls without CRM linkage will not match'), and instructs to provide opportunityIds OR opportunityNames. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-CRM scenarios, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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