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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that output is 'readable text' with 'full JSON documents in metadata', which is useful return-format context beyond annotations. Missing details like pagination or error behavior, but the additive value is solid.

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 sentences, zero filler. Every clause adds information: alias status, alternatives, id format, and return content. Front-loads the most important scoping detail.

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 an alias tool, all necessary aspects are covered: purpose, usage guidance, parameter format, return shape, and pointers to preferred alternatives. An agent can correctly invoke it without further investigation.

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?

Single parameter id is fully described in schema with examples and format specification, and the prose description repeats the format. 100% schema coverage ensures no parameter is undocumented.

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?

Description clearly states it fetches a company record and deadlines, explicitly labels itself as a ChatGPT connector alias, and differentiates from siblings by naming lookup_company and company_deadlines as preferred alternatives. The verb and resource are specific.

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 says other clients should prefer lookup_company plus company_deadlines, giving clear when-not-to-use guidance. Also explains the id comes from search, implying a workflow sequence. No ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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