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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses important behavior for dead ids: it returns what the board knows (watched closure, aged-out stub, or not found) in text and metadata, never a stale card. This adds meaningful behavioral context not present in the annotations or schema.

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 description is dense but well-structured: it leads with the alias relationship, specifies the exact I/O shape, explains dead-id behavior, and closes with routing guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value, though the density makes it slightly less scannable than a minimal two-sentence description.

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 alias tool, the description covers all necessary runtime knowledge: where the id comes from, the exact output structure and fields, behavior for dead ids, and when to use the alternative get_job. With annotations covering safety and an output schema present, nothing critical is missing.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats 'from search' without adding format constraints or additional semantics, though it does reinforce the required input source.

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 explicitly states this is an alias of get_job with a fixed input/output shape (one id in, {id,title,text,url,metadata} out), and distinguishes it from the sibling get_job by naming the specific client context (ChatGPT deep-research and company-knowledge connectors) and directing other clients to call get_job. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 when to use this alias (when you are one of the ChatGPT connector shapes), the input source (id from search), and when not to use it ('Any other client should call get_job'). This is clear routing guidance with a named alternative.

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