find_opening

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data scope ('locally imported') and pagination behavior, but omits matching rules, permissions, rate limits, and return behavior; partial behavioral context only.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple search operation.

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 tool is a simple read/search operation and has an output schema, so return details are not required in the description. However, with 0% parameter coverage and many sibling opening tools, the description leaves important query semantics and when-to-use guidance unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It weakly maps 'opening names' to the query and 'pagination' to offset, but does not explain query matching semantics, case sensitivity, or how offset/pagination behaves.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('opening names'), and scope ('locally imported'), plus pagination. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the local-import qualifier helps distinguish it from analysis and plan-oriented opening tools.

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 implies use when searching locally imported opening names, but gives no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives such as get_opening_plans or get_opening_position. Usage is only implied by the tool's narrow scope.

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