Search GHL Opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a list of filter categories, and it includes 'monetary value' which is misleading since no such filter exists. It does not disclose pagination behavior, return structure, or other operational traits, even though the schema includes startAfter/startAfterId and limit.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main action 'Search opportunities' and lists filter dimensions compactly. However, it earns a 4 rather than 5 because the misleading 'monetary value' creates unnecessary noise for a tool that otherwise could be a clean one-liner.

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?

For a search tool with 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how filters combine, what the query parameter does, pagination via startAfter/startAfterId, or the default limit. The unsubstantiated 'monetary value' further reduces reliability, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the 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 description vaguely maps 'pipeline, stage, status, contact' to some schema parameters (pipelineId, pipelineStageId, status, contactId) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It omits mention of query, limit, locationId, and pagination parameters, and introduces a non-existent 'monetary value' filter, failing to compensate for the 56% schema coverage.

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 that the tool searches opportunities (deals) with filters, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from get-style tools (e.g., ghl_get_opportunity) by implying a search over a collection. However, it mentions 'monetary value' which is not supported by any schema parameter, slightly clouding the exact scope.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_get_opportunity or ghl_search_contacts. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts. The name implies search usage, but the description carries no comparative direction.

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