find_contribution_opportunities

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only 'find' operation and mentions output contents, but does not disclose potential side effects, ordering, or error behavior. No contradictions.

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, concise sentence that effectively captures the core purpose and key output features without unnecessary verbosity. Excellent structure.

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 provides a high-level idea of the return content, but lacks details such as output format, pagination, or edge cases. Since no output schema is provided, more context could be beneficial, but it's not critically incomplete.

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 schema already provides descriptions for most parameters (tier, group, query, project), covering 80% of the params. The description adds no additional detail about parameter usage, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 open and unassigned contribution leads, and also mentions the output includes reasons, caveats, and evidence URLs, making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like search_project_updates or compare_projects.

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 usage for discovering contribution opportunities but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when to prefer this tool over others. It relies on the tool's name and inferred context.

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