search_opportunita

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions searching by name but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (likely, but not stated), if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what happens on no matches. The description is minimal and fails to compensate for the lack of 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 a single, efficient sentence in Italian ('Cerca opportunità per nome'), which is appropriately concise and front-loaded. However, it's under-specified rather than optimally concise, as it lacks necessary details, but within its brevity, it wastes no words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (search function with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 50% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the 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 50% (only 'q' has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain 'q' further or clarify 'limit' (e.g., default value, range, or units). With partial schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate, so it meets the baseline for minimal value added.

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 'Cerca opportunità per nome' (Search opportunities by name) states a clear verb ('cerca') and resource ('opportunità'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_opportunita' or 'search_contatti'. It specifies searching by name, which helps, but lacks detail on what constitutes an 'opportunità' or the search mechanism.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_opportunita' (which might list all opportunities) or 'search_contatti' (for searching contacts). The description implies usage for name-based searches but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.

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