Create opportunity

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

Annotations already disclose the full safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description is not obligated to restate mutation semantics. It adds the prerequisite that pipeline/stage IDs must be sourced externally, but says nothing about side effects, duplicate deals, or default status/stage assignment.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing, with the core action front-loaded and the dependency guidance immediately after. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description is thin. It never states that 'name' is the only required field, does not address enum behavior for status/priority, and gives no indication of what the call returns (e.g., the new deal's ID) or how defaults are applied.

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 only 42% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate more than it does. It partially does so by pointing to list_pipelines and get_account_info as sources for pipeline_id/pipeline_stage_id and assignee_id/primary_contact_id, but the remaining parameters (tags, status, priority, monetary_value, company_id) get no elaboration beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Create a new deal'), mapping cleanly to the create_opportunity name and distinguishing it from the read/update siblings (get_opportunity, update_opportunity). It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with create_task or other create_* tools, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 names concrete prerequisite tools and the data each supplies: list_pipelines for pipeline/stage IDs and get_account_info for user IDs. That is actionable routing guidance an agent can follow. It lacks any when-not-to-use or duplicate-handling guidance, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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