agora_get_opportunity_market

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves richer public context on demand and avoids injecting the whole catalog into every cycle, but it does not state permissions, rate limits, freshness, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. 'Fetch' strongly implies a read operation, but the disclosure remains partial.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a useful justification for context awareness. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or bloated phrasing.

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 zero-parameter read-oriented tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what is fetched, why it exists, and when it is appropriate. The main missing piece is any explicit safety or permission note, which would matter more if annotations were absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the input schema correctly reflects that with an empty properties object. Per the rubric, zero parameters sets a baseline of 4, and there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the schema already shows.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch full district vocation/opportunity detail'. It also clarifies the scope ('full') and mode ('on demand'), making the tool distinguishable from catalog-wide operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as agora_get_research_market.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'on demand' and 'when an agent explicitly asks', which suggests calling only when full detail is needed. It also hints at avoiding catalog injection, but it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not guidance. This is adequate but leaves the agent to infer when to prefer this tool over related getters.

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