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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint flags; the description adds operational limits (public-only, no auth bypass) and confirms the successful return shape. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with front-loaded purpose, output, constraints, and downstream usage; no filler.

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 a rich output schema, full parameter coverage, and annotations, the description explains what the tool needs, what it returns, and how the result should be consumed. Nothing essential is missing for a read-only fetch tool.

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 covers both parameters at 100%, so the description adds the useful 'public HTTP/HTTPS' constraint for sourceUrl but otherwise relies on the schema. It doesn't mention locale, but the schema already describes it.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Fetch a public website URL and extract a structured brief'), enumerates concrete output fields (business name, description, contact links, suggested page blocks), and names the downstream sibling (page_create_from_brief). This differentiates it from nearby tools such as page_create or page_intake_start.

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?

Clearly states it only works on public HTTP/HTTPS pages and explicitly notes it does not bypass login, CAPTCHA, or paywalls. It doesn't name alternatives or say when to prefer a sibling, but the boundary conditions are concrete enough to guide selection.

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