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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by specifying the opportunity is 'public' and the id is 'stable', which provides useful operational context beyond the annotations. Gaps like missing-id behavior are not disclosed, but this is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that starts with the verb and object, followed by the qualifier about the id source. Zero redundant words; every element earns its place.

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 get-by-id tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It states what is returned, how to obtain the id, and the public nature. No output schema exists, so return format is not described, but that is not a gap for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining the 'id' parameter. It compensates by stating the id is the stable one returned from list_opportunities, which gives provenance and meaning. It does not detail format or constraints, but the source is the key semantic that makes the parameter actionable.

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', the resource 'one public contribution opportunity', and the identifier source ('stable id returned from list_opportunities'). It explicitly differentiates this from list_opportunities by indicating it retrieves a single item by id, which is a clear sibling distinction.

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 gives explicit guidance that the id must come from list_opportunities, implying you should call list_opportunities first if you lack an id. It does not explicitly state exclusions or mention other sibling tools, but the prerequisite context is clear and actionable.

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