search_opportunities

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that no sort parameter is supported and results appear in Capsule's default order. This is helpful, though additional details (e.g., behavior when q is empty, authentication needs) are absent. Still, it provides meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately providing guidance on alternatives. Every sentence is valuable and no words are wasted.

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 absence of an output schema and the moderate number of parameters (4), the description covers the essential information: purpose, ordering behavior, and when to use sibling tools. It doesn't describe the output format, but that is typical for a search tool. It is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 50%, but the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. It mentions the sorting limitation, which indirectly relates to the absence of a sort parameter, but doesn't elaborate on the 'q', 'embed', 'page', or 'perPage' parameters. Therefore, it adds minimal extra value for parameter understanding.

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 the tool's function: free-text search or list opportunities in Capsule CRM. It identifies the resource (opportunities) and the action (search/list), and notes the default ordering. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool filter_opportunities, which handles structured queries.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'For structured queries... use filter_opportunities instead.' This provides clear guidance and differentiation between the two search/listing tools.

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