get_opportunity

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool returns the full record and lists its fields, and clarifies that embedding avoids multiple round-trips. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth, but for a read-only fetch that's acceptable—the added round-trip and content specifics justify a 4.

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?

Two sentences, both loaded with useful information. The scoping constraint (single vs batch) is front-loaded, and the alternative tool is named. No filler or 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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters alerts, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, how to use embed, and when to use the sibling tool. Return format is described via the field list, and annotations cover safety. No critical gaps.

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 50%: the id parameter has no description in the schema, and embed has a token list. The description adds meaning by specifying 'id' is numeric (consistent with schema) and giving a concrete usage example ('embed='tags,fields'') plus the round-trip benefit. It clarifies the purpose of the embed beyond just listing tokens, though it doesn't fully explain each token. This exceeds the baseline 3.

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 exactly what the tool does: fetch a single opportunity by numeric id, and enumerates the fields included (value, milestone, owner, party, tags, custom fields). It contrasts with get_opportunities, making the purpose unmistakable and distinguishing it from its sibling.

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 instructs when to use the embed parameter ('Use embed='tags,fields'') and when not to use this tool ('For batch fetches of up to 50 opportunities, use get_opportunities instead'). This gives the agent clear routing guidance with no inference required.

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