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

Annotations already provide safety signals (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint: false). The description adds that results can be filtered and sorted, but these behaviors are already evident from the schema. No additional context like pagination, rate limits, or aggregation specifics is provided, though the term 'Unified' hints at combined sources without detail. 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Unified opportunity search') and then lists the key capabilities. The parenthetical '(Pro tool)' adds minor context without bloat. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 7 optional parameters, rich schema descriptions, and an output schema, the high-level summary is sufficient to guide an agent. The description covers search, filtering, and sorting, while defaults and result structure are available in the schema. A small gap is the lack of explicit mention of pagination behavior, but the `page_size` parameter implies it.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are fully documented. The tool description merely repeats the parameter list (keyword, min_score, platform, etc.) without adding new semantic details. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high and the description does not compensate further.

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 the specific verb 'search' with the resource 'opportunities' and explicitly lists the filter dimensions (keyword, minimum score, platform, recommendation tier, domain category) and sorting behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_opportunity (single item) or get_overview (category summaries). The purpose is completely 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 clearly establishes this as the 'unified opportunity search' tool, implying it is the primary tool for finding opportunities via multiple filters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get_opportunity for direct lookup. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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