filter_opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: API does not support ad-hoc sort, Capsule IDs are monotonic so newest ID = newest record, and how to work around the lack of sorting. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with main purpose and includes necessary details without being overly verbose. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but overall well structured.

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?

The description is robust for a filter tool with good annotations and detailed parameter info. However, there is no output schema or description of return values, which is a gap. Given the complexity (nested conditions, embeds), some detail on the response format would improve completeness.

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 50%, but the description significantly enriches parameter understanding. It explains field name mapping (e.g., response.createdAt → filter-side 'addedOn'), common operators, how to use conditions (ANDed), and provides links to full filter docs. This compensates well for the schema gaps.

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 clearly states that the tool filters opportunities by structured conditions and explicitly distinguishes it from search_opportunities with examples like 'last won deal' or 'pipeline X at milestone Y'. The verb 'filter' and resource 'opportunities' are specific.

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 ('for questions like...') and when-not-to-use ('not search_opportunities') guidance. It also offers a workaround for sorting limitations, demonstrating thorough usage context.

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