ghl_opportunity_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for conveying behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation, but there is no disclosure of error handling, authorization requirements, or behavior when the opportunity is not found. This is a simple retrieval, but the lack of annotations and additional context limits transparency to the basic operation.

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, concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is a model of brevity and clarity, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It does not need to explain return values, but the reference to 'ID' is slightly ambiguous—it could be the opportunity ID, while the locationId is also required. The schema covers this, but the description alone leaves a small gap in completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters, including a note that locationId defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID if omitted. The description adds no extra parameter information, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a specific opportunity by ID' clearly identifies the action (get), the resource (specific opportunity), and the scope (by ID). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ghl_opportunities_get (which lists opportunities) and the create/update/delete operations.

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 this tool is for retrieving a single known opportunity by its ID, which indirectly differentiates it from list-oriented tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving room for clearer guidance.

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