autotask_search_opportunities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the pageSize parameter), error handling, or the format of returned results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Search for opportunities') and includes key qualifiers ('with optional filters'). There's zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 the complexity of a search operation with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like result format, pagination details beyond pageSize, error scenarios, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool in a rich ecosystem with many alternatives, this minimal description leaves too many open questions for effective agent use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all four parameters (companyId, searchTerm, status, pageSize). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain opportunity-specific filtering nuances or default behaviors). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Search for opportunities with optional filters' clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('opportunities'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other search tools in the sibling list (like autotask_search_companies, autotask_search_tickets, etc.), nor does it specify what kind of opportunities these are (sales, project, etc.). This makes it vague compared to what could be achieved.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools available (e.g., autotask_search_companies, autotask_search_tickets), there's no indication of when opportunities are the appropriate resource to search, what prerequisites might exist, or how this differs from other search operations. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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