Search Opportunity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP GET verb and the 'opportunities.readonly' scope, reinforcing the read-only nature and providing permission context. It does not mention pagination, result shape, or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden on the description.

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 terse sentence that front-loads the action and adds endpoint and scopes. It is appropriately concise, though the opening phrase 'Search Opportunity' is largely redundant with the title, which costs a small amount of efficiency.

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?

This is a 20-parameter search endpoint with no output schema, so the description needs to convey more than the action and scopes. It does not state that location_id is required, explain the role of q or status/country filters, or clarify pagination behavior. Sibling differentiation is also missing, making the description incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 75%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; parameters like q, order, status, country, and assigned_to remain without additional context beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline for high coverage where the schema carries 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?

The description states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Opportunity' and includes the endpoint [GET /opportunities/search], making the basic operation clear. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling opportunities_search_opportunities_advanced, leaving some ambiguity about which search endpoint should be used.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like opportunities_search_opportunities_advanced or opportunities_get_opportunity. The description only includes scopes, which is not usage direction. No exclusions, conditions, or preference cues are provided.

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