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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that output is derived from a real scan, includes findings plus supporting evidence, and embeds operating rules — notably not inventing business facts and leaving a visible TODO. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or whether the call is purely read-only, but the behavioral content is richer than most.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ending with the routing instruction. The parenthetical warning about inventing facts is somewhat dense but earns its place by conveying a key constraint.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately summarizes the return (findings with evidence and fixing rules). For a two-param read tool with no annotations, this is nearly complete; it lacks only explicit read-only confirmation and handling of the style parameter's effect.

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 both parameters (url, style enum with default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about parameter usage, so the baseline of 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 (get) and resource (a task list for making a website readable/citable), plus the origin of the content ('derived from a real scan'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling citefiles_scan by positioning itself as the downstream planning step, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the other siblings (check_files, crawler_access, agent_commerce).

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?

'Use this to plan the work after citefiles_scan' gives explicit sequencing relative to a named sibling, which is clear usage context. There is no explicit when-not guidance or coverage of the other siblings, keeping it short of a 5.

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