get_opportunita

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'recupera' (retrieves) implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, what 'dettagli completi' (complete details) includes, or response format. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point: 'Recupera i dettagli completi di un'opportunità tramite ID'. There's no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. While the purpose is clear, it doesn't help an agent understand when to choose this tool over 'list_opportunita' or 'search_opportunita', what the response contains, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool in a family of opportunity-related tools, more context is needed.

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% (the single parameter 'id' has a description in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The schema already describes 'id' as 'ID dell'opportunità (es. 13x42)' (ID of the opportunity, e.g., 13x42), which covers the parameter semantics adequately.

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 tool's purpose: 'Recupera i dettagli completi di un'opportunità tramite ID' (Retrieves complete details of an opportunity via ID). It specifies the verb ('recupera' - retrieves), resource ('opportunità' - opportunity), and mechanism ('tramite ID' - via ID). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_opportunita' or 'search_opportunita', which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools dealing with opportunities (list_opportunita, search_opportunita, create_opportunita, update_opportunita), but the description doesn't indicate this is for retrieving details of a specific known opportunity versus listing/searching for opportunities. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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