find_similar_opportunities

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the return structure looks like. It mentions pattern analysis and similarity scoring but lacks sufficient behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 description covers the tool's main purpose and analytical nature but lacks information about output format, default behavior beyond the schema, and when a referenceOpportunityId is expected versus using filter criteria. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent with no additional context.

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?

All 10 parameters are described in the schema and the descriptions are mostly clear, especially referenceOpportunityId and includeAnalysis. However, several descriptions simply restate the parameter names and add little semantic depth, keeping this at the baseline for full schema 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 finds opportunities similar to a reference opportunity or based on specific criteria, and mentions pattern analysis and similarity scoring. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like search_opportunities to draw the distinction, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as search_opportunities or opportunity_insights. The description implies analysis use cases but does not clarify when this tool should be preferred over basic search or dedicated insight tools.

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