Get HitKeep Opportunities

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to re-state safe read behavior. It adds context: 'without raw prompts or provider payloads' indicates data privacy/abstraction. But it doesn't mention whether the output is paginated or limited by default, which is useful but arguably already in parameter descriptions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. Every word earns its place. Extremely concise and structured.

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 presence of a detailed output schema (indicated by has_output_schema: true) and 100% parameter schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It captures the essential nuance (localized, no raw prompts) that the schema cannot. The tool is simple; no additional context needed.

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% for all three parameters—limit, status, site_id have clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds no extra value.

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 the tool reads saved localized Opportunity recommendations for one site, using specific verb 'Read'. It distinguishes from siblings that deal with other hitkeep features (e.g., analytics, QR campaigns). However, it doesn't contrast directly with a similar tool; among 15 siblings, none appear to fetch opportunities.

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: when you need saved opportunity recommendations for a site. It does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools with overlapping focus, the lack of explicit exclusions is acceptable but still a gap.

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