app_opportunities

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what 'collect' entails (live calls? aggregation?), whether it is expensive or rate-limited, or what it produces. The jargon 'independently classified' is not explained.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity — the one sentence is front-loaded with an undefined term rather than a concrete purpose. Short without being informative.

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?

For a tool with four required parameters and an output schema, the description is too thin: it doesn't state the use case, how the collected sections relate to eligibility/suggestion output, or why an agent should pick this over apps_eligibility. The output schema covers return shape, but the selection rationale is missing.

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 100%, so all five parameters (terms, adamId, profile, adAccountId, countriesOrRegions) are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about how these parameters scope the result, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Collect' plus the phrase 'eligibility and suggestion sections for an app' gestures at what the tool returns, but 'independently classified sections' is unexplained jargon. Nothing distinguishes it from close siblings like apps_eligibility, keyword_suggestions, or category_suggestions, so an agent cannot confidently pick it over those.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (profile, adAccountId), and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer its role relative to apps_eligibility and the various *_suggestions tools entirely on its own.

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