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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the implicit read-only nature of a 'find' operation. There is no mention of side effects, data access, performance implications, or response format, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and criteria; the second gives a clear usage condition. 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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and usage but does not clarify expected return values, how parameters interact, or what 'clear winnability' means in practice. It is adequate but leaves the agent to infer result interpretation.

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 100%, so each of the 8 parameters is already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra semantic value.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('opportunities a single developer can realistically build') and defines the core criteria (clear winnability plus single-user, local or offline core). It is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like find_unmet_demand or validate_paying_market, which focus on other constraints.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when solo feasibility is the primary constraint.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention alternative tools or conditions when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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