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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the credit cost (1 credit, plus 2 for rendering), the exact response shape (data null, markdown, metadata with credits and evidence status), the requirement for an API key, and the rendering behavior. This is thorough for a read operation.

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 information-dense but efficient. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds value: costs, response format, usage guidance, auth, and rendering. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and four parameters, the description covers the essential operational context: response structure, costs, authentication, rendering options, and sibling differentiation. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 all parameters. The description adds the constraint that the URL must be 'public' and explains credit costs, but it does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one public web page'), and the output format ('clean, structure-preserving markdown'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling contrie_extract by noting the latter is for typed fields, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides an explicit routing rule: 'Use this when you just need to read a page; use contrie_extract when you need typed fields.' Also explains when browser rendering applies (JavaScript shells), giving an agent a clear decision path for when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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