nexo_opportunity_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Read-only preparations' hints at non-modification but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. Minimal transparency.

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?

Extremely concise (8 words) and front-loaded. However, brevity sacrifices detail, making it less informative than it could be. Efficient but not maximally helpful.

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 2-param tool, the description is partial. It covers purpose but lacks usage guidance, parameter descriptions, and behavioral details. Without annotations, more completeness is needed.

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 0%. The description only hints at 'include_evidence' via 'with evidence,' but does not explain 'opportunity_id' or the effect of the boolean. Incomplete compensation for low schema coverage.

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 clearly states 'Return one opportunity with evidence and read-only preparations,' specifying the verb (Return), resource (opportunity), and key feature (evidence). It distinguishes from siblings like nexo_opportunity_queue (list) and nexo_opportunity_refresh (update). However, 'read-only preparations' is somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention when to use, when not to use, or alternatives. The description lacks context for effective tool selection.

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