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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the list of returned data points, which is useful, but does not disclose any further behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, error handling, pagination). This is acceptable given strong 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 a single, concise sentence with a clear verb-object structure and a useful enumeration of returned fields. The parenthetical '(Free tool)' is slightly unnecessary but does not detract from clarity or brevity.

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 simple single-ID fetch tool with strong annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the main action and return contents. It could mention behavior when the opportunity is not found, but that gap is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the parameter is already documented. The description adds provenance guidance ('taken from query_opportunities or get_overview results'), which tells the agent where to obtain the ID, exceeding the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 'Get the full detail of a specific opportunity' and enumerates the specific data fields included (description, score breakdown, MVP features, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_opportunities (searching) and get_overview (high-level summary).

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 parameter description says the opportunity_id is 'taken from query_opportunities or get_overview results', which implies the correct usage workflow (first find/overview, then get detail). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough.

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