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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—it does not mention what happens if the reference is invalid, whether results are cached, or any rate limits. With annotations present, the description could have added value by elaborating on the openWorldHint or potential variations in returned data, but it does not.

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 with no filler. The essential information—action, scope, and required input—is front-loaded and directly stated. Nothing extraneous.

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 read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not specify what 'details' includes or how this tool differs from the sibling get_alberta_opportunity_details. The absence of an output schema means the agent must infer the return structure from the name alone, which is a gap. A slightly richer description clarifying scope or expected response would improve completeness.

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%, and the schema already describes the reference parameter with examples ('AB-2026-03908 or a CanadaBuys reference'). The tool description merely repeats 'by reference number' without adding any new meaning or clarifying format constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'details for a federal CanadaBuys or Alberta APC opportunity by reference number'. It is specific and unambiguous, distinguishing itself by covering both federal and Alberta opportunities, even though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling get_alberta_opportunity_details. The purpose is immediately apparent.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_alberta_opportunity_details or find_opportunities. It only states the action and input, leaving the agent to infer that a reference number is sufficient. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.

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