Search Opportunities

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists return fields including derived ones (date_last_contacted, interaction_count) and notes that IDs need mapping. It does not explicitly state the tool is read-only, but the context implies it. Slight gap on pagination/rate limits, but schema covers page_size.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every sentence adds value: filtering, return fields, and cross-references to siblings. No wasted words.

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 list tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers return fields, relationships to other tools, and a concrete use case (stale deals). No critical gaps.

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 100% with decent parameter descriptions. The description adds context (e.g., pipeline_id refers to list_pipelines) but does not significantly expand on the parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List and filter') with a clear resource ('opportunities (deals) in Copper'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that get_opportunity returns full records and list_pipelines maps IDs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('triage a book of business', 'spot stale deals') and when-not-to-use ('Use get_opportunity for the full record', 'call list_pipelines to map them to names'). This helps the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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