fetch_opportunities

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

Despite no annotations, the description adds useful context: it saves progressively, returns a structured result, and indicates the 'sample' default enables offline use without secrets. However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is safe to repeat.

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 at three sentences, with the core action (ingest a source) front-loaded. The detailed return structure is listed efficiently, but the mismatched purpose with the name slightly reduces clarity.

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 return structure is thoroughly covered, and output schema exists. However, the description does not explain how this tool integrates with siblings (e.g., fetching opportunities vs listing sources), leaving the overall context incomplete for an agent deciding which tool to use.

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 description only adds meaning for the 'sample' parameter, explaining its default aids offline usage. For 'source' and 'db', no additional semantics are provided. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but is insufficient for all parameters.

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 states 'Ingest a source into the store,' which conflicts with the tool name 'fetch_opportunities'. The name suggests retrieving opportunities, but the description describes ingesting a source. This creates confusion about the tool's actual function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_opportunities' or 'list_sources'. The description does not specify use cases or exclusions.

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