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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and with no output schema the description carries the return burden well: it discloses the {results: [{id, title, text}]} shape, that duplicate campaigns are collapsed, and that zero matches yield a plain note with a dashboard link rather than an empty array. It does not mention authorization or rate limits, and the closing line about ChatGPT/Claude research modes is context rather than behavior, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 key scoping fact (what is searched, and that it is not a web search) is front-loaded and the result/refetch contract is useful. However, the description duplicates the schema's parameter text almost word for word, stacks four example questions in-line, and ends with a promotional line about ChatGPT Deep Research and Claude research modes that does not help an agent decide or call correctly.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies what comes back, how duplicates are handled, what happens on a miss, and how to escalate to fetch. For a single-parameter read tool with strong annotation coverage, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema's query description is essentially a verbatim copy of the tool description's first clause, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The only marginal addition is that 'query' is the free-text entry point for both the keyword and question modes, which the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (searches) over two named resource classes (this account's brands/campaigns, and product/help questions) with the matching fields spelled out in parentheses. It also differentiates itself from the rest of the catalog with 'Not a web search' and a handoff to fetch, so an agent can place it among ~50 siblings without opening a schema.

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 covers both query modes with concrete example strings, states the boundary ('Not a web search'), and names the follow-up path ('Pass a result's id to fetch for the full record'). The no-match behavior is also described, which removes the main ambiguity an agent would have about whether a call failed.

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