channel_opportunities

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only.' Beyond that it discloses return shape (per-state counts, safe_to_archive, top_opportunities), the archive-safety guarantee ('Nothing else is safe to archive'), and a meaningful edge case where empty results signal a distribution problem rather than healthy listings.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then usage, then edge cases — a sensible ordering. Every sentence carries information, but the paragraph is long and contains a stray artifact ('[#7c8c30]') that adds noise.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it delivers (categorical outputs, per-state counts, archive list). It also covers the interpretation caveat an agent needs to avoid misreading thin results. Nothing essential is missing 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 100%, so all five parameters (start, end, store, provider, workspace) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no format or default details beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific resource and its defining characteristic up front — listings with proven traffic but broken conversion, ranked by viewers-who-didn't-buy. An agent can immediately distinguish it from analytics_summary or channel_performance siblings. The phrasing is slightly metaphorical but is clarified in the same sentence.

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?

Explicitly positions it as 'the natural starting point for an optimisation pass' and instructs to fix these before anything else. It also sequences a prerequisite ('READ `shop` BEFORE acting') and explains when the output is misleading (low shop views). Rare, high-value when-to-use guidance.

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