ChatGPT Web capabilities

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the data is live, account-dependent, and sourced from the web UI rather than a hard-coded list. This helps an agent understand that results may change and should not be assumed static.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds an important caveat about the source of truth without unnecessary detail.

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 zero-parameter read-only introspection tool with an output schema and readOnly annotation, the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, source of truth, and dynamic nature. Nothing critical is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parametershare, so there is no parameter burden on the description. Schema coverage is complete, and the description appropriately focuses on what is being inspected rather than input details.

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 (inspect) and resource (live model and reasoning/effort choices for the signed-in ChatGPT account). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like chatgpt_status and chatgpt_chat, which are about status and chat operations.

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 an agent needs the live, account-visible model and reasoning/effort capabilities rather than chat or status. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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