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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent. The description adds that the text is a plain-prose summary rather than raw structured data, which is a non-obvious behavioral trait. No contradiction.

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 fluff; the first sentence provides context, the second states the action, the third explains the return format. Front-loaded enough.

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?

Given the single parameter, high schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description provides the key additional context (purpose, return semantics, and usage). It's complete for a simple fetch.

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 schema already documents the 'id' parameter with 100% coverage, and the description reinforces it by saying it's returned by the search tool. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema's description, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool fetches the full document for a Cyclesite listing id, and differentiates itself from siblings by highlighting its OpenAI deep-research compatibility and plain-prose summary output. The specific verb 'fetch' plus resource adds clarity.

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 explicitly says the id comes from the search tool, implying the prerequisite step. It also frames the use case (deep-research answers, quoting) which serves as a guideline. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling tools like get_listing_detail.

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