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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: search terms or capabilities may be transmitted to Cohere for commodity filter selection, with a pointer to /privacy. That external-data-sharing disclosure is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the capability statement before the privacy caveat, with no filler. Slightly clipped by the dangling 'See /privacy' fragment, but nothing wasteful.

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?

The read-only search behavior is well covered by annotations and the entire input surface is documented by the schema. What is missing is any hint of what comes back—result shape, ranking behavior from industry labels, or whether `limit`/`days` produce a truncated set—which matters given there is no output schema.

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 all three parameters and the nested profile fields are already documented, and much of the description's profile guidance (inline overriding saved, capabilities derived from description) repeats the schema text. It adds only modest emphasis on 'per call' scope; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Find Alberta Purchasing Connection opportunities') and adds the matching qualifier ('that match your business profile'), which distinguishes it from a bare keyword search. However, with siblings like find_matching_opportunities, find_opportunities, and search_alberta_opportunities present, it never names or contrasts with those alternatives, so the agent must guess which finder to pick.

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 real guidance on passing an inline `profile` per call and notes the inline profile overrides a saved one, which is useful context for choosing this over profile-based flows. But it says nothing about when to prefer this over find_opportunities, search_alberta_opportunities, or find_matching_opportunities, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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