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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. It adds profile-scoped behavior and 'per call' semantics, but says nothing about matching logic, ordering, or output shape, so behavioral transparency is adequate rather than rich.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then a single actionable instruction. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 schema and annotations fill in the read-only profile and parameter details, and the tool is a simple list/find operation. However, without an output schema the return shape is left implicit, and the description never addresses what happens when no profile is supplied or how this differs from the many sibling search tools; that is a moderate completeness gap.

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, including nested profile field semantics such as 'derived from description when omitted' and 'overrides any saved profile.' The description only reiterates that an inline profile should be passed, adding no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('Alberta Purchasing Connection opportunities'), and a selection criterion ('match your business profile'), so an agent understands exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast with similarly named siblings such as search_alberta_opportunities or find_matching_opportunities, though the resource and 'business profile' framing narrow the purpose.

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 establishes the use case: finding Alberta Purchasing Connection opportunities relevant to a business profile, and instructs the caller to pass an inline profile. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing (e.g., saved profile vs search_alberta_opportunities), but the context is clear enough for a matching task.

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