search_chatgpt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'timeout' as a parameter, implying potential delays or rate limits, but doesn't describe what happens during timeout, error handling, authentication needs, or output format. For a search tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about key behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first phrase and efficiently lists parameters with brief notes. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., search results, formatted responses), error conditions, or how it integrates web search with ChatGPT. This leaves significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value by listing parameters and a default for timeout, but doesn't provide additional context like query formatting examples or timeout implications beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema 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's purpose: 'ChatGPT with web search' indicates it uses ChatGPT with web search capabilities. It specifies the action (search) and resource (ChatGPT), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_claude or search_gemini, which would require a 5.

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. With multiple sibling search tools (e.g., search_bing_search, search_google_search, search_claude), there's no indication of when ChatGPT with web search is preferred, what contexts it's suited for, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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