get_opportunity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns the full record, lists the included components (value, milestone, owner, party), and explains how embedding affects round-trip behavior. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second summarizes return content and embedding tip, the third routes to the batch sibling. Information is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no filler or redundancy exists.

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 single-record read tool, the description is complete: params are covered by the schema plus description, the return payload is summarized (relevant since there is no output schema), safety is in annotations, and the sibling alternative is named. No critical missing information for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 50%: 'embed' is documented but 'id' is not. The description compensates by clarifying that 'id' is numeric and shows a concrete usage example for 'embed' ('tags,fields'), which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. It doesn't enumerate all valid embed tokens, but the schema already lists them, so the combination is sufficient.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single opportunity') with a clear scope qualifier ('single', 'by its numeric id'). It names the sibling 'get_opportunities' as the batch alternative, making the distinction explicit.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this vs the sibling: single fetch here, batch of up to 50 with get_opportunities. It also gives a usage tip for embedding tags/fields in one round-trip. The guidance is direct and leaves no ambiguity about which tool to pick for single-record retrieval.

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