analyze_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that posts are scored by popularrity, engagement, and semantic relevance, and points to README for the formula. However, it doesn't address read-only behavior, rate limits, auth requirements, or output side effects, leaving part of the burden unmet.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and scoring criteria, with no filler. The README pointer avoids dumping formula details while still being honest about where to find them.

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 a full input schema, an output schema, and zero annotations, the description covers the core purpose, scoring dimensions, and formula location. It doesn't enumerate defaults or parameter interactions, but those are already present in the schema, so what remains is sufficient for most calling scenarios.

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 100%, so all six parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond mentioning monetization and pain-point keywords, which loosely relates to the semantic relevance concept but not to any specific parameter.

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, 'Scan subreddits', and a clear resource and outcome: identifying business opportunities (SaaS/startup pain points). This is distinct from sibling tools like search_reddit, get_trending_posts, or get_post_detais, none of which target business opportunity scoring.

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 the tool is for finding business opportunities, so an agent can infer when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_reddit or get_trending_posts, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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