get_sample_opportunity

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

The description discloses that the sample is 'fixed' (static, not changing) and 'free' (no cost), but it does not explicitly state whether the tool makes network requests, has side effects, or what the response contains. With no annotations, this is insufficient for a safe invocation.

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 two short sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the key information: the sample is real, fixed, and free.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is minimal. It explains the sample is a card but doesn't specify the structure of the response or any usage context, which is a gap given there is no output schema.

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 has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 identifies the tool as returning a 'real, fixed sample opportunity card' showing the 'full paid card shape,' which clarifies it's a demo/sample variant. The name also indicates 'get' and 'sample,' distinguishing it from real opportunity tools like get_opportunity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that it's for testing, previewing, or as a fallback when real data is unavailable. The only hint is the word 'sample,' but it lacks explicit usage instructions.

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