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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail beyond that: it geo-targets from a country/state, returns the full answer with cited sources, and can include markdown, search queries, shopping, and ads depending on flags. It does not mention quotas/rate limits, but the safety profile is covered.

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 with no filler: the first states the action and output payload, the second states the practical use case. It is compact, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names the core inputs (prompt, country, optional state) and the key return fields (text, cited sources, optional extras). It could explicitly mention the disableWebSearch option or route to list_countries/list_states, but those are documented in the schema and sibling names.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description restates the general prompt/country/state concept and optional output flags, but adds little beyond the schema's own field descriptions. Baseline 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 specifies the exact verb and resource: submit a prompt to ChatGPT and return the answer text plus cited sources, with optional extras. The use case ('see how ChatGPT answers... which brands/sources it mentions') clearly distinguishes it from sibling scrapers for other engines.

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 description gives a clear context for use: checking ChatGPT's answer, source mentions, and brand/source inclusion. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the ChatGPT-specific purpose is enough to route an agent toward it.

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