Search opportunities (deals)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the return shape: totals by status and stage (count and value) plus a compact list with stage names substituted for IDs. It omits pagination behavior and what 'raw' changes.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the searchable dimensions, followed by return shape and use case. The field enumeration is slightly list-like but each item carries real filtering information.

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 an 18-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key filters and the return contract well, and annotations handle the safety profile. Gaps are minor: the opaque 'raw' flag, sorting, and pagination controls are not addressed.

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 67% and the description mostly restates fields already documented in the schema. It does add useful intent-level mapping ('value' to monetary value, 'owner' to assignee), but leaves undocumented params (raw, tags, sort_by, sort_direction) unexplained in either place.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search deals') and enumerates the searchable dimensions (name, status, pipeline, stage, owner, company, value, close date). It also distinguishes itself from the singular get_opportunity sibling by describing a filtered list with aggregate totals.

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?

Gives concrete usage context ('Good for pipeline reviews and forecasts'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It does not name alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer get_opportunity for a single deal), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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