score_opportunity

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the output is a normalized 0-100 score with a weighted breakdown, suggesting a read-only computation. However, it does not mention potential side effects, external calls, or limitations. For a compute tool, the implicit read-only nature is somewhat transparent, but key details are missing.

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 concise: a single sentence for purpose, followed by a structured Args list. Every part adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded. No fluff or redundant content.

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 is simple with two parameters, and the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, there is no output schema, so the description should ideally detail the return structure. 'Full weighted breakdown' is vague, and no error conditions or prerequisites are mentioned. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section explicitly explains both parameters: 'niche: The niche to score' and 'suggested_price_usd: Optional price point to factor into the profit-margin component.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, clarifying the role of each parameter, especially the optional price point.

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 clearly states the tool computes a normalized 0-100 opportunity score for a niche with a full weighted breakdown. The verb 'compute' and specific resource 'opportunity score for a niche' make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from sibling tools like research_market or find_trending_niches.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or refer to sibling tools. The only implied usage is the need to have a niche, but no context is provided about whether this should follow research or precede other steps.

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