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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true; the description adds the economically important behavior: it is paid in mttr credits, and the zero-connection case returns 503 at no cost. It also enumerates the return content (cited/whether, where, name-without-citation, who is cited instead), which annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then cost, then the failure mode, in three dense sentences with no filler. Every clause conveys a distinct fact an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing exactly what comes back per assistant. Cost, prerequisite sibling check, and the no-connection failure mode are all covered, leaving nothing material for an agent to guess.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the instruction to leave the site's name out of the question. The description only adds the framing that the question is asked with web search enabled, which is useful context but not new meaning beyond the schema.

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 and resource: asks ChatGPT, Gemini and Perplexity one question with web search on, then reports citation status per assistant. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling mttr_citations, which is described as the pricing/balance tool rather than the query tool.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions and alternatives: check mttr_citations for price and balance first, and note that only connected assistants are asked (503 and no cost otherwise). It doesn't clarify when to prefer this over near-neighbors like mttr_claim_check or mttr_tells, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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