ghl_get_opportunity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention any critical details such as required permissions, response format, error behavior, or whether the resource might be modified.

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, clear sentence with no superfluous information. It is appropriately brief for a straightforward get-by-ID operation.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of context. It does not mention what the response contains, any potential pitfalls, or usage context, leaving the agent with only a minimal understanding.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond what the parameter name 'opportunityId' already conveys. Saying 'by ID' is redundant with the schema, providing no additional semantic value.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (specific opportunity), and the scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_search_opportunities, which involves querying for multiple opportunities.

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. While the name and description imply using it when you have an opportunity ID, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or when to prefer ghl_search_opportunities instead.

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