Get opportunity

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that this is a single-record read keyed by ID and spells out the extra fields returned beyond the list view. It does not say what happens if the ID is unknown or belongs to another tenant, which is the one behavioral gap.

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?

Field list is front-loaded and the two sentences are short. There is mild redundancy: the second sentence re-describes the same payload ('what list_opportunities gives plus…') already implied by the first, costing a few words without adding new information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value disclosure and does so adequately by naming the fields an agent will receive. For a one-parameter read-only getter it is nearly sufficient; error/not-found behavior is the only missing piece an agent might need.

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 100% and the sole parameter already documents 'opportunity_id from list_opportunities.' The description restates the same keying ('by opportunity_id') without adding format, range, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the 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+resource ('Reads one Contractor Foreman opportunity by opportunity_id') and enumerates the returned fields in the opening line. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_opportunities by describing this as 'what list_opportunities gives plus' the customer's email/phone, notes and last activity subject.

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?

Usage is clearly implied: this is the single-record counterpart to list_opportunities, and the description ties itself to that sibling both for purpose and for sourcing the ID. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when you already have an ID, otherwise call list_opportunities' exclusion, but the routing is unambiguous.

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