chatgpt_search_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for disclosing side effects and behavior. It reveals that the tool leverages the web's 'search chat' interface and returns specific fields, which is useful. However, it does not state whether this is read-only, whether it requires navigation or leaves browser state changed, or any other behavioral traits beyond the search action itself. It meets the baseline but leaves gaps.

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 long, front-loaded with the search mechanism and key differentiator, then lists return fields. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple search tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only two simple parameters. The description explains the purpose, method, and return format, which covers the main context. However, the parameter semantics are entirely absent, and the brief mention of not being limited by sidebar loads is useful but doesn't fully clarify the search scope or edge cases. For a low-complexity tool, it is adequate but with notable gaps.

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 0% (no descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. It fails to explain 'query' or 'limit' at all. The parameter names are intuitive but not documented, and the description does not mention how limit affects results or what query formats are accepted. This is a clear gap given the low coverage.

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 searches historical conversations using ChatGPT's web search interface, specifying the verb 'search', the resource 'historical conversations', and the method. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like chatgpt_list_history by noting it is not limited by sidebar loading counts, and it lists return fields (title, conversationId, URL).

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to find historical conversations beyond what the sidebar currently loads. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer it is the search complement to listing. The lack of explicit 'use X instead' prevents a 5.

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