List B2match opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: results are paginated and the menu path is resolved automatically unless overridden. It stops short of describing response shape or rate limits, but the added context is genuine.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the sibling routing and path-override note. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a four-parameter paginated read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, this is nearly complete. With no output schema, a brief note on what the paginated response contains would have closed the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter (path, after, event, first) is already documented, including the cursor and the 50-item cap. The description only restates the path auto-resolution behavior already present in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list published marketplace opportunities — offers/requests — of an event) plus the pagination scope. It explicitly contrasts itself with get_opportunity, so an agent can distinguish it from the detail sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: 'Use get_opportunity for one entry's full details.' It also explains the path parameter's default behavior (auto-resolve) versus explicit override. No explicit when-not or prerequisite guidance beyond that.

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