ChatGPT Scraper API

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions sending a prompt to ChatGPT and returning structured JSON, but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, external dependencies, authentication requirements, or error behavior. The phrase 'at scale' is vague and lacks concrete detail.

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 a single, focused sentence of 14 words. It front-loads the primary action and output, with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, including 'at scale' to imply batch/high-volume usage.

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?

Despite the tool being simple (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks important contextual information such as when to use it, what to expect regarding response structure beyond 'JSON', and any operational constraints. An agent would have insufficient information to confidently select this tool over similar search/scraping tools.

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%, with both parameters ('prompt' and 'html') having clear descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, though it does reinforce that the default output is structured JSON (consistent with html=false). The baseline of 3 for full schema coverage 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 clearly states the action ('Send a prompt'), the resource ('ChatGPT'), and the outcome ('response as structured JSON, at scale'). It uniquely identifies this tool among the sibling tools, none of which mention ChatGPT. The verb+resource+output structure is specific and immediately understood.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without contextual decision-making support. There is no reference to sibling tools or specific use cases.

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