Get opportunity

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already informs the agent this is a safe read operation. The description consistently says 'Fetch', reinforcing that. The openWorldHint is also covered. Since annotations carry the behavioral safety profile, the description adds minimal extra detail beyond the action, which is appropriate for a simple get.

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, short sentence with no redundancy. The key information is front-loaded: what it does and how. It is appropriately sized for a simple fetch tool.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the essential action and input. It does not specify the response format or error behavior, but those are often implied for standard get-by-id operations. The annotations further cover safety. It is nearly complete for its complexity level.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it merely says 'by id' which simply restates the parameter name 'opportunityId'. It does not explain the expected format, origin, or any semantics beyond what the parameter name already conveys. This adds no meaningful value over the schema.

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 'Fetch a single opportunity (deal) by id' clearly states the verb (Fetch), resource (opportunity/deal), and the specific retrieval method (by id). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like ghl_search_opportunities (which searches) and other get-by-id tools for different resources.

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 phrase 'by id' implies usage when the caller already knows the opportunity ID, which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like searching when the ID is unknown, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is adequate but not explicit about exclusions.

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