search_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses return fields and that the endpoint is undocumented and free, but omits behavior like destructive actions, rate limits, pagination details, error handling, or stability implications.

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 very concise with two sentences front-loaded with purpose. However, the inclusion of 'FREE' and 'Undocumented endpoint' adds context but could be more structured (e.g., separated into usage notes).

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lists some return fields but lacks pagination, sorting, filtering details, error codes, or any note about the undocumented endpoint's reliability, which is critical for an agent.

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 coverage is 57%, with four parameters described. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating 'keyword search' for q_keywords, and does not explain sorting, pagination, or the toggle parameter sort_ascending. It fails to compensate for the three undocumented parameters.

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 searches for deals/opportunities in Apollo CRM, specifying verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling search tools like search_contacts or search_accounts, which target different entities but could be confused in purpose.

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 given on when to use this tool versus get_opportunity for individual records or other search tools. The mention of 'Undocumented endpoint' is a warning but lacks context on alternatives or when not to use.

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