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 'full field set' and 'one deal' context, but does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, or other edge-case behavior. It is adequate but not rich beyond 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?

Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is stated firstks, and the workflow hint is placed second.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description supplies everything needed: what to pass, how to get it, and what to expect. No significant gaps remain.

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 fully described structurally. The description adds value by clarifying that the opportunity_id is an Apollo id and by telling the agent how to find that id before invoking the tool.

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 a specific verb ('deal' fetch) and resource ('one deal by its Apollo id'), and explicitly contrasts it with the search tool that finds ids. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_apollo_opportunities_search and patch_apollo_opportunities_opportunity_id.

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 a clear usage workflow: use get_apollo_opportunities_search to find the id, then call this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is enough for an agent to select it appropriately for id-based fetches.

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