List B2match opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail the annotations do not: that the menu path is auto-resolved unless overridden. It says nothing about result volume, pagination behavior beyond the cursor in the schema, or rate limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the path caveat. Very tight, though the override sentence is slightly cryptic without knowing what a menu path is.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could say more about what an opportunity record contains and how results are scoped/paginated. Since pagination parameters (after, first) are documented in the schema, the main residual gap is result scope relative to sibling tools.

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 75%, with `path` being the one undocumented parameter; the description compensates directly by explaining that path overrides automatic menu-path resolution. It still omits the expected format/syntax of path and doesn't restate scoping for `event`.

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 (List) and resource (marketplace opportunities), which contrasts cleanly with the singular sibling get_opportunity. It is clear what the tool returns at a category level, though it never says whether it lists for the current user, the event, or globally.

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 second sentence gives conditional guidance for the path parameter ('pass path to override'), which is useful. However, there is no guidance on when to use list_opportunities versus get_opportunity, or whether the event scope is required context.

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