bonfire_search_opportunities

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

Goes far beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. Discloses that the RSS is the complete set, client-side pagination, exact totalAvailable, honest empty result, error handling (429/5xx/404 throw, no fake empty), schema drift detection, invalid input pre-fetch, fixed-suffix SSRF, and keyless access. Fully transparent.

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 long but well-structured with clear sections (HONESTY, etc.) and no wasted sentences. It front-loads the main purpose. A touch verbose but justified by the complexity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly declares the return shape ({ org, opportunities, _meta }) and covers edge cases (empty feed, errors, schema drift). This is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 three parameters have schema descriptions, but the description adds critical context: org is from bonfire_list_organizations, limit is 1-200 with default 50, offset is 0-based, and these are client-side pagination over a complete RSS feed. This meaningfully augments the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists currently-OPEN solicitations on Bonfire via RSS. It specifies the source (Bonfire), the scope (open), and the method (keyless RSS), distinguishing it from other government opportunity tools like SAM.gov or Grants.gov.

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?

Explicitly states that the tool is keyless and requires an org slug from bonfire_list_organizations. It also clarifies that the RSS is the complete set and errors are thrown. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling opportunity search tools like sam_search_opportunities or opengov_search_solicitations, which would help an agent choose between them.

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