List opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes domain behavior the annotations cannot: deals exist at every stage, budget is in the account currency, score is bounded 1-5. It stops short of disclosing result-set size or pagination expectations, which matters for a list tool.

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 first sentence front-loads the core purpose and returned fields, with the second adding domain context. It is dense but every clause carries real information; the only redundancy is the search sentence echoing the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly: field list, stage enumeration, score range, currency, date and assignee. An agent can decide relevance and construct a call without additional information.

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 'Search by name, number or customer' sentence largely restates the search parameter's own description. The description adds no detail on limit bounds or cursor continuation behavior, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. Baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Reads the Contractor Foreman Opportunities list') and defines the domain object precisely: deals for a customer before they become a project. The field inventory (number, name, stage, score, budget, date, assignee) plus the enumerated stage list makes it unambiguously distinct from get_opportunity and list_leads.

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?

Usage is implied by the read/list framing and by 'Search by name, number or customer,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. It never says to call get_opportunity for a single deal, or how this differs from list_leads, which is the nearest sibling by domain.

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