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

Despite annotations indicating a destructive, non-read-only open-world operation, the description adds valuable detail: submission returns HTTP 202, output is null initially, billing is $0.00145 per successful fixed_request job, and failed/cancelled jobs are not billed. It also explains the Idempotency-Key replay behavior, going well beyond the annotations.

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 purposeful, front-loading the core async submission concept before covering response, billing, cancellation, and sibling routing. It is slightly long as a single paragraph and repeats the Idempotency-Key advice, but every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 9 parameters, nested objects, an output schema, and async, billed behavior, the description is admirably complete. It covers required inputs, polling, cancellation, billing exceptions, and how to route synchronous Google sources to a different sibling tool, leaving no critical gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description re-emphasizes that `source` selects the engine, `prompt` is required, and `Idempotency-Key` must be unique, but it does not add new param-level information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with 'Submit an asynchronous query to a major LLM answer engine — ChatGPT, Gemini, or Perplexity — via Oxylabs Push-Pull,' naming a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that Google sources belong on post_oxylabs_ai_search and that results are polled via get_oxylabs_llm_job.

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 explicit when-to-use context: these sources take ~40–90s and run as background jobs, so polling get_oxylabs_llm_job is required. It also flags the alternative for synchronous Google sources ('stay on post_oxylabs_ai_search') and points to the cancel endpoint for queued jobs.

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