list_opportunities

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the ranking formula (0.4*Demand + 0.35*Supply + 0.25*Timing) and interprets what 'higher opportunity' means, which is valuable contextual behavior. It does not mention output format or pagination, but for a read-only list tool this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause earns its place. The formula is concise and adds informational value without verbosity.

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 list tool with no output schema and two optional parameters, the description covers purpose, use case, ranking behavior, and interpretation of results. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context around the ranking system but does not elaborate on parameter-specific meanings beyond the schema. The formula indirectly clarifies why 'limit' matters, but that is marginal.

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 lists 'top YouTube gaming opportunities' with a specific ranking methodology. The verb 'list' and resource 'opportunities' are precise, and the scope (YouTube gaming, ranked by opportunity score) distinguishes it from siblings like get_game or check_topic.

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 explicitly says to use it 'when a creator asks what to play/record, or which games have an open content gap.' This gives strong usage context, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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