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

The description goes well beyond the read-only annotations by disclosing the ranking pipeline: commodity-code prefiltering, TypeSafe Jev classification, keyword scoring, Buy Canadian bonuses, and tie-breaking. It also transparently states when search terms or business descriptions may be sent to Cohere or TypeSafe and points to privacy documentation.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is generally efficient, with no wasted introductory prose. It is somewhat dense and repeats the privacy pointer twice, which prevents a perfect score despite the high-value behavioral details.

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?

Given the nested profile object, annotations, and output schema, the description is largely complete for understanding what the tool does and how matching works. The main remaining gap is explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling opportunity-search or fit-scoring tools.

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 the schema already explains days, limit, and the nested profile fields. The description reinforces that profile is supplied inline per call, but it adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not explain how days or limit behave.

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 a specific verb and resource: it ranks CanadaBuys and Alberta APC opportunities for a business profile. It implies a personalized matching purpose distinct from generic opportunity searching, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from close siblings such as find_business_fit or find_opportunities.

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 tells the agent to pass an inline profile per call and implies use when ranked business-fit opportunities are wanted. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no direct sibling routing guidance.

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