list_deleted_opportunities

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the response includes a 'restrictedOpportunities' key for partially readable records, which adds useful behavioral context beyond a simple list operation. However, it doesn't confirm read-only nature or any side effects.

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 with no wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded, and the key constraint (required parameter) and notable response key are succinctly stated.

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 covers the main purpose and a crucial response detail. With no output schema, it could elaborate on pagination behavior or typical response structure, but the parameter schema handles pagination. It's sufficiently complete for an audit tool.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'since' has a description). The description reinforces that 'since' is required and gives an example format, adding value. For 'page' and 'perPage', no extra info is provided beyond the schema defaults, so the description partially compensates.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists deleted opportunities filtered by timestamp, with a specific verb 'list' and resource 'deleted opportunities'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_deleted_parties and list_deleted_projects by focusing on opportunities.

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 labels it an 'Audit feature', hinting at appropriate contexts, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or provide alternative tools for regular opportunity listings. The requirement for the 'since' parameter is clear, but no exclusion criteria are given.

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