ghl_opportunity_search_advanced

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

Annotations are present but do not describe side effects beyond basic hints. The description adds OAuth scopes and pagination guidance but no behavioral details like rate limits or data modification. For a search tool, this is acceptable but adds modest value over 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?

The description is relatively concise, front-loads key information (method, distinction, docs reference), but has some redundancy (first sentence and later 'Search Opportunities based on combinations of advanced filters'). Slightly verbose but overall efficient.

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 complex nested body and lack of output schema, the description should ideally provide more response context or usage examples. It references external docs for pagination, which is helpful but incomplete for a standalone definition. Still, it covers the essential usage guidance.

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 100%, and the description lists the required body fields but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it's an advanced filter-combination search for opportunities using POST, and explicitly distinguishes it from the simpler GET-based ghl_opportunity_search sibling tool. The verb 'search' and resource 'opportunities' are specific.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool vs. the alternative (ghl_opportunity_search for simple field-filter) and references external pagination guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide exclusionary criteria.

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