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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral nuance: the output is 'a block of text' rather than structured fields, and the id must be a conference slug obtained from `search`. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. The compatibility constraint is front-loaded first, then the core behavior, then the preferred alternative, then the id semantics. Every sentence earns its place.

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-parameter, read-only compatibility shim, this is complete. It explains why the tool exists, what it returns (including the specific conference fields), how it relates to get_conference, and what the id means. No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the content sufficiently for correct invocation.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the clarification that 'The id is the conference slug,' which is concrete and useful beyond the schema's generic 'An id from search.' This small but meaningful extra justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific role: 'Compatibility tool: OpenAI connectors require a tool with this exact name and one string argument.' It then states the actual behavior: 'Returns one conference for an id from `search` — dates, location, speakers, sponsors and exhibitors — as a block of text.' It clearly distinguishes itself from get_conference, which returns the same edition as structured fields.

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 description explicitly says when to use it ('OpenAI connectors require a tool with this exact name') and when not to: 'Prefer get_conference where you can'. It gives a concrete reason — get_conference returns structured fields and allows configuring list sizes — so an agent can route correctly without ambiguity.

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