Search GoHighLevel Opportunities

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds the endpoint and server-side filtering detail but lacks behavioral context like pagination, default limits, or response handling.

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 sentence, concise but overly brief. It front-loads the endpoint but omits important context, making it insufficiently informative relative to the tool's complexity.

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 19 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover pagination, filter combinations, output format, or any usage context needed for an agent to use 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 only 26%, meaning most of 19 parameters lack schema descriptions. The tool description does not explain any parameters or add meaning beyond the generic 'server-side filters', failing to compensate for low coverage.

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 opportunities using GET /opportunities/search with server-side filters. It specifies the verb 'Search' and resource 'opportunities', differentiating from sibling tools like ghl_get_opportunity (single) and ghl_search_contacts.

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 description implies use for searching opportunities but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like ghl_get_opportunity or ghl_search_contacts. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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