Get opportunity detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a report retrieval operation and lists the report contents, plus the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, error scenarios, or rate limits, which would improve transparency.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb and object. It includes essential details without any extraneous words, making it easily skimmable.

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 description covers the tool's main purpose and report contents, which is useful given the lack of an output schema. However, it lacks parameter semantics and deeper behavioral details (e.g., required permissions, response format), making it not fully complete for a tool with three parameters and no annotations.

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 provides no explanation of the 'slug', 'region', or 'language' parameters. The agent is left to infer that 'slug' identifies the opportunity and 'region'/'language' are filters, but with no guidance on formats or allowed values, this is a significant gap.

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 specific action ('Open a full opportunity report') and resource, with explicit contents (score breakdown, Steam/YouTube evidence, crowding estimate, creator brief). It distinguishes itself from sibling discovery tools like find_youtube_gaming_opportunities by focusing on retrieving details for a specific opportunity.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving detailed reports on a specific opportunity, which is clear context for when to use it. It also notes the prerequisite of a PeepTrend API key. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.

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