Search opportunities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds no information about pagination behavior, defaults, or return structure beyond what the schema provides. The description is consistent with read-only intent and does not contradict annotations.

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?

A single sentence that fronts the action and filters without redundancy. Every phrase contributes: 'in a location' sets scope, and the filter list is concise.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and only read-only annotations, the description leaves the agent uncertain about return format, pagination defaults, and whether locationId is required (it defaults but description says 'in a location'). It does not mention that a single-get alternative exists. The definition is adequate for basic use but lacks guidance on result handling and edge cases.

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 56% (5 out of 9 params documented). The description clarifies ambiguous filters (e.g., 'assigned user' for assignedTo, 'free-text query' for query) and mentions location, but it omits page, limit, contactId, and pipeline specifics. It adds some semantic value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 action (Search), resource (opportunities/deals), and scope (in a location), and enumerates the key filter dimensions. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ghl_get_opportunity (single fetch) and ghl_search_contacts (different entity).

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 implies usage for listing/filtering deals but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ghl_get_opportunity (single) or ghl_create_opportunity (creation). There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names.

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