Search Opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the REST endpoint (POST /opportunities/search) and required scope (opportunities.readonly), which are useful behavioral signals. However, it does not disclose pagination/searchAfter behavior, query syntax, or how additionalDetails affects results, so the added transparency beyond annotations is modest.

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 main sentence is single and direct ('Search Opportunities based on combinations of advanced filters'), and the endpoint/scopes line is dense but relevant. It could be more structured, but it is not verbose and front-loads the action and resource.

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?

Even with readOnly annotations, this tool has six required parameters, a nested additionalDetails object, and no output schema. The description provides none of the parameter semantics, searchAfter usage, or pagination logic needed to make a correct call, and instead defers to an external documentation link. It is not self-contained enough for an agent to invoke reliably.

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 only 17% (only locationId has a generic description), so the description carries the burden of explaining the six required parameters. It does not mention query, limit, page, searchAfter, or additionalDetails at all, leaving an agent with no understanding of their meaning or formats.

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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Opportunities'), and adds that it operates on 'combinations of advanced filters,' which suggests a more complex search than a basic one. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool opportunities_search_opportunity, so it is clear but not fully distinct.

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 phrase 'based on combinations of advanced filters' implies this tool is for complex, multi-filter searches, which provides some implicit usage context. Yet the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over opportunities_search_opportunity or other search endpoints, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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