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

The description discloses that the tool classifies text, which effectively conveys it's a read-only analysis operation. However, it does not describe the response structure, error behavior, or any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and leaves room for ambiguity about what the agent can expect.

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 a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the action verb and avoids any redundant or extraneous details.

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?

The tool is simple, but without an output schema or annotations, the description fails to explain what the classification result looks like or how to interpret it. The agent is left without guidance on the response format, which is crucial for a moderation tool that outputs policy violation categories.

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 input schema itself includes detailed descriptions for both parameters (input and model), with the model parameter having a thorough explanation of the two options and their differences. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema compensates, making the baseline of 3 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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Classifies' and clearly identifies the resource ('text violates OpenAI's Content Policy'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like createImage or createTranscription, which serve different domains.

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?

The context is clear: this tool is for content moderation. While no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use instructions are given, the sibling tools are clearly unrelated (image/audio/model operations), so the intended use is obvious. However, no direct comparison or exclusions are stated.

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