opportunities_search_opportunity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context whatsoever—nothing about return structure, pagination, limits, or any side effects. It provides zero value beyond the annotations.

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 severely under-specified—two words with no substantive content. This is not conciseness but a lack of specification. It does not front-load any useful information because there is none. Minimal length alone does not earn points when it omits essential guidance.

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?

With 20 parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent would be unable to determine what filters are available, what data is returned, how pagination works, or any other operational details. The description offers no assistance for correct invocation.

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 70%, meaning some parameters lack descriptions (q, page, order, country, assigned_to). The description does not compensate for these gaps nor add any insight into parameter relationships. While the schema covers most parameters, the description contributes nothing to parameter understanding, so the score is low despite partial schema help.

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 Opportunity' is a tautology of the tool name 'opportunities_search_opportunity'. It merely restates the verb and object without adding any detail about what the search returns, scope, or filters. It fails to distinguish this from sibling search tools like opportunities_search_opportunities_advanced.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the more advanced sibling search (opportunities_search_opportunities_advanced) nor provide any context such as 'use for simple searches' or 'use when you need to filter by status.' No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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