explain_opportunity

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the return content (statistics plus plain-language narrative) and scopes the tool to BigCommerce today. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but 'explain' and the return description imply no mutation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and output, then gives usage triggers and sibling differentiations. Every sentence earns its place; the comparison sentences are compact and high-value rather than redundant.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields and narrative style, so an agent knows what to expect. It covers the single parameter, the intended usage context, platform scope, and relationships to sibling tools, making the description complete for this low-complexity 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents opportunity_id and its source. The description reinforces that the id comes from get_opportunities and refers to a single opportunity, but it adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('Explain'), a specific resource ('ONE mined opportunity'), and the concrete outputs (support, confidence, lift, order sample count, narrative). It explicitly differentiates itself from get_opportunities and get_rationale, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 trigger phrases ('why is this a good cross-sell?', 'explain this opportunity', 'why should I bundle these?') and the context of use ('after seeing it in get_opportunities'). It also names the alternatives it is not, making the when-to-use decision unambiguous.

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