salesforce_get_opportunity

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

The description adds routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose the actual effects, return behavior, or risks of invoking the action. Given that annotations mark this as destructiveHint=true with readOnlyHint=false, the description leaves the agent unable to determine whether calling this tool can mutate Salesforce data.

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 compact and well-ordered: it states the action first, adds routing context, then lists arguments. Every sentence has a clear role, though the brevity sacrifices opportunity-specific guidance.

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?

This is under-specified for a wrapper with no schema-level descriptions and an annotation indicating destructive potential. The agent cannot tell what the dispatcher will do with the message, what structured inputs are valid, or why destructiveHint is true, so the description is not sufficient for safe and correct invocation.

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?

Both parameters are named, but only generically: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what structured inputs get_opportunity expects, such as an opportunity ID or filter fields, but it does not.

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 names a specific action, `get_opportunity`, and states that it is executed through the Salesforce domain-agent dispatcher. It conveys that this is an opportunity-related retrieval operation, though it never explains what an opportunity is or contrasts it with siblings like salesforce_list_opportunities or salesforce_get_account.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The routing and scoping information is context, not a usage condition, and no alternatives 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.