engain_get_opportunity

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('get'), but no annotations are provided to confirm. It does not disclose error behavior, idempotency, permissions, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied 'get' semantics.

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 extremely concise (six words) with no redundancy. However, it may be too terse for a tool with no annotations or output schema, leaving important gaps.

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 tool's simplicity (1 param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return format, error cases, or how to obtain an opportunity ID. The absence of annotations exacerbates this gap.

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 single parameter 'opportunityId' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not add any meaning, format, or example. Agents must infer its purpose solely from the parameter name.

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 action (get) and resource (opportunity) and identifies the lookup method (by ID). However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like engain_get_order or engain_get_mention, which follow the same pattern.

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 (e.g., engain_list_opportunities for multiple opportunities). The description does not specify prerequisites or context.

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