Quiet Stance Productive Opportunity Intake

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds real value beyond them: it evaluates only user-supplied facts and explicitly disclaims ROI estimation, bankability claims, and creating financing/grant authority — a meaningful boundary on what the tool will and will not do.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the read-only nature and scope. No filler, though the jargon phrase 'real productive opportunity' costs a little clarity.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-coverage assessment tool with no output schema, the description is only partially sufficient: it never indicates what the fit assessment returns (verdict, score, gaps) nor explains the enum-based rights_status input, which is the most decision-relevant parameter.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It maps several parameters (owner_authority, rights_status, project_stage, demand_offtake, support_needed) but leaves project_name, estimated_value, country_location and the rights_status enum values undocumented, and 'project boundary'/'missing capability' do not map cleanly to any parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (fit check / evaluates) and resource (a real productive opportunity) and enumerates the dimensions assessed (owner/authority, rights status, boundary, demand, stage). However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_project_opportunity, and 'fit' against which criteria is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'read-only fit check' and the scope exclusions (no ROI, no bankability, no financing/grant authority), which tell the agent when not to reach for this tool. But it never names submit_project_opportunity or states the condition under which that sibling should be used instead.

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

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond them: authorization prerequisite, sanitization requirement, sensitive-data prohibitions, and the legal effect that submission creates no mandate or commitment. It does not cover idempotency or rate limits.

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 definition is three sentences, front-loaded with the action and condition, and contains no redundant or filler text. Every sentence adds a distinct constraint or caveat.

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 16-parameter submission tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers authorization and sensitive-data limits but omits parameter meanings, required field guidance, and sibling routing. It leaves substantial gaps an agent must fill.

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 schema has 16 parameters and 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not explain any parameter, including required fields like inquiry_type, rights_status, project_stage, or consent, nor the enum values.

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 (submit) and resource (productive opportunity or partner inquiry) with a scope condition. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from its sibling assess_project_opportunity_fit, so it falls short of a 5.

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 a clear condition for use: only after explicit user authorization, and it lists prohibited content. However, it does not mention when to use this versus assess_project_opportunity_fit, so alternatives are not addressed.

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