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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real context beyond that: the fields returned (id, title, text, url, metadata) and the tradeoff that structured clients get the same data with structure. It omits any error/not-found behavior, keeping it just under a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences that are front-loaded with the action and id formats, then the return shape. The 'shape ChatGPT connectors expect' clause is slightly editorial but not wasteful enough to drag it below a 4.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully carries the return-value contract itself. Combined with the id format guidance and the sibling alternative, an agent has enough to call correctly; only failure modes are unaddressed.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the id and even its prefix formats, which the description largely repeats. The description adds no syntax or constraint information beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb (fetch) and resource (one document from the map) and enumerates the exact id formats accepted. It also distinguishes itself from the direct siblings (get_object, get_process, get_metric), so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear context — use the id a search result handed you — and names the alternative path (calling get_object/get_process/get_metric directly for structured data). It stops short of stating when not to use it or any prerequisites, so it is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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