openai_safe_api_request

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses an endpoint allowlist and a no-destructive-methods rule, which is real signal, but says nothing about auth requirements, which HTTP methods are actually permitted, error/response behavior, or rate limits — critical gaps for an escape-hatch REST tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core identity and followed by the two governing constraints. Only "Advanced" fails to earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a generic, unrestricted-shape REST escape hatch with no annotations the agent still cannot tell which paths/methods will be rejected or what the allowlist covers. That is the single most important thing to know before invoking it, and it is absent.

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 description adds no per-parameter detail, but the schema is fully self-documenting: method, path, body_json, and query_json are self-explanatory names with 0% description coverage yet intuitive semantics. The phrase "JSON REST call" reinforces the format expectation for the two JSON parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate where the schema needs no elaboration.

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 names the resource class ("approved model and inference endpoints") and the operation type ("JSON REST call"), which separates it from the task-specific siblings, but "Advanced" is filler and the verb is generic — it never says what a caller would actually do with it (e.g., hit endpoints not covered by dedicated tools).

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 states a negative constraint ("no destructive methods") which is a partial when-not, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the 17 sibling tools that wrap the same endpoints, and no prerequisites for what counts as an "approved" endpoint.

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