find_opportunities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating that the tool ranks all projects and returns a well-specified set of outputs: scores, what is ready, what is missing, effort estimate, and suggested pricing. It does not note permission requirements or data-freshness caveats, but for a zero-parameter read/analysis tool, the behavioral description is strong.

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 with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence lists the return contents compactly. Every phrase adds information.

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 no-input tool without an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what the tool ranks, the basis of ranking, and the exact categories of information returned. The main gap is positioning relative to revenue_scan and other sibling tools, but that is more about usage guidance than the tool's own behavior.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden to compensate for. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to document.

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 verb 'Rank' and the resource 'ALL projects', and explicitly says it ranks by revenue potential. It also enumerates the output components (scores, readiness, gaps, effort estimate, pricing), which makes the purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling revenue_scan, which may also be revenue-related.

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?

The intended use is implied: use this when you need projects ranked by revenue potential and supporting opportunity details. But the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives like revenue_scan, suggest_actions, or list_projects. The context is clear enough to infer, but not stated.

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