list_party_opportunities

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it returns the same record shape as get_opportunity and supports embedding for one round-trip, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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 two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the key compatibility and embed details. It doesn't waste words, though the embed example could be considered redundant with schema tokens.

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 filtered list tool with read-only annotations and an existing output schema reference (get_opportunity), the description is fairly complete. It covers the party filter, return shape, and embed hint, but doesn't explicitly mention pagination parameters or default behavior, though these are covered by the schema. Overall adequate for an agent to call correctly.

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%, but the description mentions the embed parameter and its example tokens, including 'tags,fields'. It doesn't explain partyId or pagination semantics, but the schema itself provides some descriptions. The description adds a bit beyond the schema, so a 3 is fair.

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 it lists opportunities linked to a party, and distinguishes itself from get_opportunity by focusing on a party filter. It also gives a specific use case ('what deals do we have with X?'), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 explains when to use this tool (for party-filtered opportunities) and contrasts with get_opportunity, but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like search_opportunities. Still, the context implies the right usage.

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