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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and non-open-world; the description adds the return field set (id, title, text, url, metadata) and notes the output shape is tailored for ChatGPT connectors. It does not discuss error behavior for invalid ids, but for a simple one-document read this is a minor gap.

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 dense sentences cover purpose, id format, return shape, and the main alternative without filler. The most important invocation detail (search-result id format) is front-loaded.

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 fetch with one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what the id means, what comes back, and how it differs from structured siblings. No critical information is missing for a well-scoped single-document retrieval.

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?

The single id parameter is fully described in the schema, and the description repeats that exact guidance without adding constraints, default behavior, or examples beyond the same prefix list. With 100% schema coverage, this meets the baseline but provides no additional parameter meaning.

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 specific action and resource, 'Fetch one document from the map', and defines the id format with concrete prefixes. It also names the structured get_object/get_process/get_metric siblings, so an agent can distinguish this flattened fetch from those alternatives.

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?

Clear usage context is given: use the id from a search result, and clients able to call get_object, get_process, or get_metric can get the same data with structure. It does not explicitly specify when one should choose fetch over those tools beyond the 'connectors expect' shape, so it stops just short of full routing guidance.

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