Get opportunity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful return-shape context (all fields plus custom fields) that no output schema provides, but says nothing about missing/invalid IDs, permissions, or field ordering.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope qualifier (all fields, including custom fields) is attached directly to the verb-object rather than buried.

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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description's note that custom fields are included largely compensates for the absent output schema. It falls short only on failure behavior and how to obtain a valid ID.

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% for the single required parameter and the schema already documents opportunity_id with type and exclusivity. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one deal) plus the return scope (all fields, including custom fields). The phrase 'one deal' implicitly separates it from sibling search_opportunities, but the description never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. 'One deal' weakly implies the caller already has an ID, but the agent must infer that from the required opportunity_id field rather than from the description.

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