get_opportunities

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description reveals internal behavior: native endpoint for 1–10 ids, transparent chunking and parallel requests for 11–50, and merged results. It also explains the return record fields (value, milestone, owner, party), giving the agent a solid model of side effects and 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 three sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then covers behavioral nuance and the alternative in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 read-only annotations, the full parameter schema, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed: purpose, limit, chunking behavior, return contents, and routing to the singular alternative. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (ids and embed) are already documented. The description adds the return-record contents (value, milestone, owner, party) and the explicit batch-size breakdown, which gives the agent a fuller understanding of what the ids parameter yields. However, the core parameter meaning is already in the schema, so this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Batch-fetch up to 50 opportunities by id') with clear scope and even names the alternative for single-id use. This distinguishes it immediately from get_opportunity, search_opportunities, and filter_opportunities without ambiguity.

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?

It explicitly says 'For a single id, use get_opportunity instead,' which is direct routing guidance. It also implies use for multiple ids by describing the batch behavior, leaving no doubt about when to pick this tool over its siblings.

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