search

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

The `readOnlyHint` annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. The description adds that the tool returns search results and pairs with fetch, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects (e.g., rate limits, sorting, or pagination). With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds some but limited value.

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 very concise: two sentences and a short phrase. It front-loads the tool's purpose ('ChatGPT Deep Research search') and provides essential return format details. Every sentence contributes value. Minor improvement could restructure to first state purpose then return and usage hint.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value and suggests a pairing with 'fetch'. However, it lacks information about result limits, error conditions, or how to interpret the 'id' as a vault path. Given the low complexity, a 3 reflects adequate but not thorough completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, the description only mentions the return format and does not explain the 'query' parameter's expected format, constraints, or examples. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which simply defines 'query' as a string. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 it performs a 'ChatGPT Deep Research search' and returns a list with specific fields (id, title, url). It also explains that 'id is the vault path', making the resource clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_vault', which may cause ambiguity.

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 includes a usage hint: 'Pair with fetch', implying a workflow. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_vault', nor does it state when not to use it. The context is implied but not comprehensive.

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