wealthbox.opportunities.get

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but 'Get opportunity by id' does not mention return format, error behavior, permissions, or any side effects. It is a bare statement with no added context, leaving the agent guessing about the output.

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, unambiguous sentence that is front-loaded and free of any fluff. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary words.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to attempt the call. However, it lacks details about the return value or potential errors, so it is not fully complete for a tool with 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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'id' parameter, and the description only says 'by id', which merely restates the parameter name. No additional meaning or constraints are provided, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 opportunity by id' clearly uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'opportunity' and the scope 'by id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'opportunities.list' and other resource-specific getters by specifying the exact resource and action.

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 usage is implied: users should call this tool when they have a specific opportunity id and need that single record. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or alternatives like 'list', so it falls short of a 4 or 5.

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