search_opportunities

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool is free, but lacks information on rate limits, pagination, data freshness, authentication requirements, or any constraints on result size. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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 concise, two sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds the free aspect. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the complexity (2-param search tool, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a basic outline of what the tool does and returns. However, it lacks details on result limits, ordering, error behavior, and scope. It is adequate but could be more complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters. The description mentions 'by keyword or category,' which aligns with the schema. However, it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 action (search), the resource (affiliate opportunities), and the input methods (keyword or category). It mentions the output includes matching vendors and products with commission info. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_opportunity_details' or 'list_affiliate_programs', though the context implies a broad search.

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 includes a note about being free, which is helpful. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'search_opportunities' vs. 'get_opportunity_details' or 'list_affiliate_programs'). The usage is implied but not explicit.

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