bh_get_topic_discoveries

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read operation, but the description does not disclose pagination, ordering, result shape, or how filters behave. It is not misleading, but it is thin on 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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning while leaving out unnecessary detail.

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 has two optional filter parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only names the resource. It omits filter semantics, return-value shape, and sibling differentiation, leaving an agent to infer behavior that should be stated.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters, but it never mentions status or priority as filters. The enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('topic opportunities'), with 'SEO-driven' adding useful context. It is distinct enough from obvious action tools like bh_discover_topics, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 the tool is for retrieving previously discovered topic opportunities, which gives a basic usage cue. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like bh_discover_topics, nor does it mention the optional status and priority filters.

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