Get lost reason

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and required scope (opportunities.readonly), which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, list-vs-single return shape, or filtering semantics.

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 very short, front-loads the endpoint and scope, and contains no filler. It loses a point because the brevity sacrifices substantive behavioral or semantic guidance, though as conciseness itself it is effective.

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 7-parameter endpoint with no output schema, the description should at least indicate whether the tool returns a single record or a list, and what the results represent. It only says 'Get lost reason', leaving the result shape and usage context under-specified.

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 description coverage is high at 86%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Get lost reason') and adds the endpoint, so it is not a pure tautology. However, it does not clarify whether this returns a single lost reason or a paginated list, nor what a 'lost reason' represents, leaving the core purpose ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as opportunities_search_opportunity or opportunities_get_opportunity. The endpoint and scope are given, but the agent must infer the intended use case entirely.

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