get_top_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description reveals the tool is a read-style operation (combining data, no side effects mentioned) and discloses that revenue estimates use configured RPM and affiliate multipliers. However, it omits details like idempotency, required permissions, or error handling, which is acceptable for a non-destructive tool.

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?

Three sentences with no waste: the first sentence captures the core function, the second explains the weighting mechanism, and the third specifies revenue estimation. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is complex (combining three signals with revenue weighting) and has an output schema, so the description focuses on inputs and behavior. It could mention the output format or any prerequisites, but the presence of an output schema reduces the burden. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that site_rpm can override the default RPM from the environment, clarifying its role in revenue estimation beyond the schema. Other parameters are adequately covered by the schema.

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 combines three distinct signals (striking-distance keywords, content decay, cannibalization), weights them by estimated revenue, and returns a single ranked action list. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_striking_distance_keywords or analyze_content_decay.

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 when to use this tool (for a consolidated revenue-weighted opportunity list) and lists sibling tools that cover individual components. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide direct comparisons, leaving some inference to the agent.

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