read_opinions

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

With no annotations, the description discloses useful behavioral details: the output includes 'other_agents_seen' and its meaning. It also notes that the tool includes the agent's own opinions. This goes beyond a simple read and helps interpret results.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It then provides usage guidance and a parameter tip without any wasteful words. Each sentence contributes value.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, when to use, output interpretation, and parameter usage. It doesn't fully describe the shape of individual opinions, but overall it is sufficient given the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the only parameter: 'Filter to one asset with ``asset``.' This adds practical meaning to the schema, which only provides a default value.

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 action ('Read recent opinions') with a clear resource ('opinions from other connected agents (and your own)'). It differentiates well from sibling tools like post_opinion and clear_opinions by focusing on the read operation.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'If other agents are running, use this to compare views before deciding.' It also implies when not to use it ('if it's empty, you're likely trading solo'). Does not name alternatives directly but gives clear usage conditions.

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