search_opportunities

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Find' implies a read-only analysis, but the description does not explicitly state that no data is mutated, nor does it clarify whether results are sorted by an ROI metric or merely filtered. It provides some behavioral context but leaves room for inference.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff or repetition. It states the core purpose and selection criteria efficiently, making every word useful.

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?

All seven parameters are fully described in the schemaaca and there is an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return structure. The description adequately captures the tool's purpose and main criteria, though it omits explicit guidance on alternatives or sorting behavior, which would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description adds general semantic context around position and impressions but does not map to specific parameters beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 identifies the action ('Find queries') and the selection criteria ('ranking just off page 1 with high impressions'). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like search_analytics or keyword_ideas by focusing on opportunity-oriented filtering, though it never names an alternative.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when seeking high-impression queries that rank just off page 1 and could be improved. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the use case is well enough implied.

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