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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool strips HTML tags, navigation bars, and scripts, returns clean body text and HTTP status code, and implies it only handles public pages. It does not mention timeouts, redirects, or non-HTML handling, but covers the core behavior well. This is above average but not exhaustive.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loads the core function, then its output, then usage constraints. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero fluff. It is efficiently structured for quick agent comprehension.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns (body text and status code), when to use it, and when not to. An agent receives all necessary information to invoke it correctly without needing additional 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% (the single 'url' parameter has a detailed description including protocol and example). The tool description adds only the mention of 'HTTP or HTTPS' and 'public,' which is already implied by the schema's format uri and description. At 100% coverage, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description adds no significant extra meaning.

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 verb ('Fetches and sanitizes'), the resource ('readable text content from any public HTTP or HTTPS web page'), and the scope ('any public...'). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools (audit_dns, chunk_text, etc.) by describing a unique web-fetching function, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when an agent needs primary webpage content for summarization or analysis') and clear exclusions ('Do not use for authenticated pages or executing JavaScript'). This directly helps an agent decide between this and alternatives, even though siblings are unrelated.

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