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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it clarifies what is affected ('changes extraction rules only and never touches items already collected'), the cost model (one credit on success, nothing on failure), and the failure mode (refused with noCredits at zero balance). These are operationally critical details 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?

Two tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose then conditions then safety/cost. Every clause carries distinct information with no repetition.

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 one-parameter non-destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, triggers, side effects, cost, and failure handling — everything an agent needs before invoking it.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single required sourceId already documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing further about parameters. 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 and resource ('Re-analyze how a monitored page is structured') plus the downstream effect ('later checks extract it with freshly learned rules'). This mechanism distinguishes it from the neighbouring update_source/get_source tools without needing the schema.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions: 'Use when a page was redesigned, or when its items are being extracted wrongly.' It gives clear when-to-use context but does not name an alternative (e.g. update_source) or state exclusions.

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