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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description still adds substantial behavior: robots.txt is checked first, disallowed pages are skipped with a reason, no authentication or paywall bypass, and the returned metadata set. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loads purpose and output shape, then constraints, then the parameter note. Dense but every clause carries information; slightly long but no filler sentences.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes them plus robots.txt handling and capability limits. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, links and max_chars including defaults and the http-to-https upgrade. The description only reiterates the max_chars default threshold, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (one public web page), and precisely describes the returned artifact: main content as Markdown with headings, paragraphs, lists, quotes, code blocks, tables and absolute links. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling feedback 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?

Explicitly scopes usage to a single public page and lists the conditions under which it will not work (sign-in, paywall, CAPTCHA, page scripts), which is effectively when-not guidance. It does not name alternatives, but the siblings are unrelated so no routing ambiguity exists.

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