enrich_opportunity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'enrich' but does not disclose whether the opportunity record is modified (write) or only returns data (read). It also lacks details on authorization requirements, data sources, or any side effects. The description gives no clarity on behavioral traits beyond the action itself.

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 sentence that packs multiple concepts without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, one could argue it tries to cover too many outcomes in one breath, making it slightly dense but still efficient. It earns a 4 for being concise without sacrificing core 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?

The tool has 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema. The description fails to explain what the tool returns or how the enrichment is presented (e.g., structured data, text). Given the complexity of enrichment and the presence of sibling tools like 'opportunity_insights', the description lacks guidance on when this tool is the best choice and what distinguishes the output from similar tools.

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%, so the schema already describes the parameters. The description adds minimal extra context beyond the schema: it mentions 'similar deal patterns' which hints at how the boolean parameters might interact, but does not elaborate on the meaning or effect of 'includeCompetitiveIntel' or 'includeBestPractices' beyond their default values.

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 uses the specific verb 'Enrich' and clearly states the resource 'opportunity', followed by concrete outputs: market intelligence, industry insights, and strategic recommendations. It references 'similar deal patterns and best practices', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_similar_opportunities' and 'opportunity_insights' by implying a synthesis rather than just retrieval.

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 usage when an opportunity needs augmentation with external insights, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool (e.g., if the opportunity already has sufficient data) nor any differentiation from siblings like 'generate_business_case' or 'analyze'. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative recommendations are given.

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