list_opportunity_entries

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

With readOnlyHint=true already present, the description adds useful behavioral context: results are returned newest-first, and each entry has a type, free-text content, and timestamps. It does not mention pagination behavior or embed semantics, but it covers the core return behavior well.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then return behavior, then the canonical usage, then the relevant alternatives. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 read-only list tool, the description is strong: scope, ordering, entry content, and alternative routes are all given. The main omissions are pagination and embed token semantics, but those are partially represented in the input schema and are probably lower-risk for an agent.

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 25%, so the description bears some responsibility for parameter meaning. It clarifies the opportunityId context via 'for an opportunity', but page, perPage, and embed are not explained beyond their schema types/defaults. The schema's constraints and defaults partially compensate, and the tool name makes opportunityId fairly clear.

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 what the tool does: it lists timeline entries for an opportunity, enumerates the entry types (notes, captured emails, completed-task records), and specifies ordering. It is distinct from list_party_entries and list_project_entries because it is scoped to 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?

It gives an explicit use case ('what's the latest on deal X?') and directly names the sibling tools to use instead for party or project timelines. This gives the agent clear selection criteria beyond merely inferring from the tool name.

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