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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context by stating the required scope 'opportunities.read', an auth prerequisite not present in the structured fields. It omits not-found/error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the auth requirement front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 read-only single-record getter with a fully documented schema and annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to sufficient. A brief note on what is returned by default (and that 'field' can shrink the payload) would close the last gap, since no output schema exists.

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 schema itself documents embed and field with examples and constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameter usage, though little is needed here.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one opportunity by id'), and the singular 'one' distinguishes it from list_opportunities and search_opportunities. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

'By id' implies you already know the identifier, which hints at when this is appropriate rather than searching. However, no alternative is named (search_opportunities, list_opportunities) and there is no guidance on what to do when the id is unknown.

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