shelter_opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds examples of opportunity types (subscriptions, bills) which give some content insight, but no further behavioral traits like pagination or filtering behavior are described. The addition is minimal, so a moderate score is warranted.

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 one short sentence (12 words), front-loaded with the core action, and every word contributes value. There is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 tool's simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and scope. However, with multiple sibling tools, a brief note on when to use this versus others would increase completeness, but it is not critical for this straightforward read-only tool.

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 fully documents the single optional 'category' parameter with an enum and a clear description ('Filter opportunities by category'). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Find savings opportunities' and lists concrete examples (unused subscriptions, negotiable bills, spending patterns), specifying the resource and scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like shelter_status or shelter_forecast, which do not overlap in intent.

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 priority of finding savings opportunities is clear from the wording, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. Given the many siblings, some guidance on when to choose this tool over others would strengthen it, yet the context is clear enough for this simple use case.

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