search_opportunities

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already cover the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral constraint that results are returned in Capsule's default order and no sort parameter is supported. However, it does not describe response format or pagination behavior, so the added transparency is moderate but not exceptional.

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 with no filler: first states the action, then the ordering constraint, then the alternative for structured queries. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 has 5 parameters, annotations for safety, and no output schema, the description covers tool selection and a key behavioral constraint. The main missing element is an explicit return-shape description, but for a search/list tool this is loosely inferable. The schema covers the subtle 'since' behavior, so the overall definition is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 60%; q, embed, and since have descriptions, but page and perPage do not. The tool description does not explain the missing pagination parameters, though it does imply q is optional via 'search or list' and communicates that sorting is not available. It partially compensates for schema gaps but does not fully carry the load.

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?

Description states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Free-text search or list opportunities in Capsule CRM.' It also distinguishes itself from filter_opportunities for structured queries, so an agent can tell which tool is appropriate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the conditions that select it: 'For structured queries — most recent, won this quarter, in pipeline X at milestone Y — use filter_opportunities instead.' This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus its sibling.

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