opportunities_search_opportunities_advanced

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

The description adds nothing beyond the annotations already provided (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true). It does not disclose behavior such as pagination requirements (page, limit, searchAfter), the meaning of the additionalDetails flags, or any side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description still contributes no behavioral context, so it scores minimal.

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 description is extremely brief (two words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks any structure or detail needed to be useful. While it is concise, it fails to convey necessary information, so it rates low.

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 tool has 6 parameters, a nested object, required fields, and no output schema. The description provides zero context about how to construct a valid call, what the response contains, or any constraints. It is completely inadequate for an agent to use this tool correctly.

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 only 17% (only locationId has a description). The description 'Search Opportunities' provides no explanation of query syntax, how limit/page/searchAfter drive pagination, or the purpose of the additionalDetails object. It fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage of the other five parameters.

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 'Search Opportunities' merely restates the tool name and gives no information beyond the verb and resource already present in the name. It fails to specify what 'advanced' means or how it differs from the sibling 'opportunities_search_opportunity'. It is essentially a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the simpler sibling 'opportunities_search_opportunity' or any other search tool, nor does it explain the context for using the advanced search (e.g., pagination or additional details flags). An agent is left without any decision support.

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