ask_brightdata_assistant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that—the assistant is named Sophie and supports threaded follow-ups through dialog_id—but does not mention latency, reliability, or whether answers are authoritative, which would round out the picture.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded with the core purpose first and the usage triggers second. Every clause carries information—topic scope, trigger conditions, sibling disambiguation, and threading support—with no filler.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed: purpose, when to call, topic boundaries, and how to continue a conversation. Return-value explanation is unnecessary given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents both parameters including the 24-char constraint on dialog_id. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that dialog_id enables threaded follow-ups, clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's mechanical description.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Ask Bright Data's support assistant (Sophie) a question') and names the topical scope: products, APIs, MCP usage, zones, scraping, account setup. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling, which are scraping/execution tools rather than a knowledge assistant.

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?

It gives explicit triggering conditions: user asks 'how do I...', an unrecognized Bright Data error occurs, or the agent must choose between products. It even names the specific alternatives being disambiguated (Web Unlocker vs. Scraping Browser vs. dataset tools), leaving little inference required.

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