Latest opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses two key behaviors: filtering out expired opportunities and ordering by newest first, plus optional type filtering. However, it omits details like pagination, default limit (though the schema covers it), and what fields are returned, which would matter for an agent deciding how to interpret results.

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 with zero fluff. The core purpose and ordering are front-loaded, and the convenience-shortcut note is positioned second. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: what is returned (latest, non-expired), ordering, and the type filter. It names the alternative tool. Minor gaps like return format and pagination behavior are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal value by restating the type restriction ('optionally restrict to one type') but doesn't elaborate on valid values or the limit parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully covers parameter meaning.

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 action ('return'), the resource ('opportunities'), and the scope ('most recently posted (non-expired)'), plus the ordering ('newest first'). It also explicitly names its relationship to the sibling tool oppcircle_search, distinguishing it as a convenience shortcut for the 'what's new' use case.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a shortcut over oppcircle_search for 'what's new', giving clear guidance on when to use it. It doesn't enumerate exclusions (e.g., when to prefer search), but the convenience-shortcut framing implies search is for more complex queries, which is sufficient guidance.

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