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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful operational context: the tool submits a prompt, geo-targets from a chosen country, and can return richer payloads like markdown, search queries, shopping results, and ads. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and return contents are front-loaded, and the usage rationale is concise. 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 nested include flags and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the main optional response fields. It falls short slightly on explaining the undocumented 'legacy' parameter and exact payload implications, but overall an agent can reasonably select and invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 80%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds value by naming the optional output types (markdown, search queries, shopping results, ads) and noting state targeting, but it doesn't explain the 'legacy' boolean or individual include subfields, and the schema largely carries the weight.

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's action ('Submit a prompt to ChatGPT') and its return value (full answer with text, cited sources, and optional markdown, search queries, shopping results, ads). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on ChatGPT and brand/source mentions, making the resource explicit.

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 concrete context for when to use it: 'Use this to see how ChatGPT answers a prompt and which brands/sources it mentions.' It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like scrape_gemini or state when not to use it, but the ChatGPT-specific framing and sibling list make the intended scope clear.

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