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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds behavior beyond them: it enumerates the accepted id namespaces, flags that statement:<id> is run-scoped and must be re-searched after a rescan while finding:<finding_key> is stable, and describes the return shape (id, title, text, url, metadata with direct-tool data flattened to text).

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 essential rule — read by id, prefer direct tools if available — is front-loaded, and the id namespace list is compact. The 'second half of the search/fetch pair that connector clients such as ChatGPT require' clause is explanatory padding that a purely operational read could drop.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the id provenance, all accepted id formats, stability caveats, and return fields. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or to decide not to.

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 100% and the schema already notes the reference format and run-scoping, so the description is partly redundant here. It still adds value by spelling out all six id prefixes (object:, finding:, process:, metric:, statement:, playbook:) rather than the two the schema names, which is what an agent actually needs to construct a valid id.

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 and resource ('Read one map document by the id') and immediately scopes it to ids produced by a prior search. Clearly separable from siblings like get_object or list_findings, which the description names explicitly.

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?

Explicitly states the condition for use ('for a result search handed you, or a finding_key') and the condition against use ('If your client can call the direct tools, use them instead'), then routes to four specific alternatives (get_object, get_process, get_metric, list_findings) with the criteria that select each.

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