Get opportunity details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses that output is converted to readable text and lists the returned fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention max_chars truncation behavior, what happens when multiple or no identifiers are provided, or any error conditions.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then the return contents, then the key invocation constraint. Every part 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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main invocation rules and return content well. It is missing explicit handling of max_chars and error cases, but an agent can correctly call the tool with the information provided.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the exclusive-or relationship among id/slug/url and by noting that id comes from oppcircle_search. It does not add much for max_chars, but the schema already documents that parameter well.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), names the resource ('a single opportunity'), and enumerates the returned content in enough detail to distinguish it from sibling list/search tools. It clearly identifies that this is the detail-getter for one known record, not a discovery tool.

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?

It gives actionable guidance: provide exactly one of id/slug/urlческое and even notes that id comes from oppcircle_search. It does not explicitly say 'use this after search for full details instead of search results', but the 'single opportunity' framing makes the intended context clear.

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