opportunities_get_opportunity

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already disclose the tool's safety profile, so the bar is lower. However, the description adds zero behavioral context beyond a generic 'Get Opportunity'. It does not describe return format, potential errors, or any special behavior, contributing nothing beyond the 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?

The description is a single, concise phrase with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without waste. While it could be slightly more descriptive, it is appropriately minimal for such a simple tool.

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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits usage context such as when to use this tool over search tools and does not hint at the return value. It is complete enough to call but lacks guidance for correct selection.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the 'id' parameter, including a description ('Opportunity Id'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, requirements, or default behavior). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 clear verb+resource pair ('Get Opportunity') and implies retrieval of a specific record via the 'id' parameter. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like opportunities_search_opportunity and opportunities_get_pipelines, but does not explicitly state 'by ID' in the description, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opportunities_search_opportunity or opportunities_get_pipelines. The description does not mention conditions like 'use when you have the opportunity ID' or when to prefer search tools. This is a significant gap for selection.

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