Get B2match opportunity

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: the marketplace menu path is resolved automatically and can be overridden via path. It does not mention failure modes for invalid ids or the shape of the returned opportunity, keeping it at a 4.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the id-sourcing caveat and the path-override behavior. The parenthetical carries non-obvious routing information, so nothing reads as filler.

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 read-only, idempotent single-resource fetch with no output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly: which id to supply, where to get it, and how path resolution behaves. Since no output schema exists, a brief note on what the returned opportunity contains would make it complete.

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 only 33% (only event is documented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It does explain opportunity_id's accepted forms and sourcing, and clarifies path as an override for auto-resolution; event remains covered by the schema. The one gap is that opportunity_id's type/format nuances rely mostly on the surrounding prose.

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 (Fetch) and resource (a marketplace opportunity) and disambiguates itself from siblings by specifying which ids to use: those from list_opportunities rather than the different opportunity ids surfaced by my_participation. An agent can tell this apart from list_opportunities without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context for correct invocation, naming list_opportunities as the id source and warning that marketplace ids differ from my_participation ids. It does not state explicit when-not-to-use conditions or name a competing retrieval tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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