Get Opportunity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: no auth requirements, no rate limits, no note that this is a read-only operation, no indication of what the optional include flags do to the response. The one useful behavioral hint ('Will slow down the request' for campaigns) lives only in the schema, not the description.

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?

It is short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness: a single route fragment with no front-loaded statement of purpose, scope, or return behavior. Nothing is wasted because nothing is said.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 6-parameter read tool with zero annotations the description should at minimum state the resource semantics and how the include/filter flags shape the result. It provides none of that.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the id pattern and the tokenTypes filter semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 is a raw REST route ('GET /v4/opportunities/{id}') that restates the tool name rather than explaining what an opportunity is or what the call returns. It implies a single-resource fetch but gives no differentiation from siblings like opportunities-search or opportunities-campaigns, which share the same resource.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool versus opportunities-search, opportunities-campaigns, or the aggregate siblings. The agent must infer usage entirely from the path string and the tool name.

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