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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses crawl scope (home, contact, about, imprint pages) and implies a read-only extraction, but says nothing about cost, latency, rate limits, or what happens when listed pages do not exist, which matters for a multi-page crawl.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the extracted payload followed by the use case; every phrase earns its place. Slightly terse on the operational side, but no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the extraction scope is well covered. However, with zero schema descriptions the undocumented `max_pages` parameter leaves a real gap an agent must guess at.

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 0%, so neither `url` nor `max_pages` is documented anywhere. The description's page list gives an indirect hint about crawl breadth, but it never explains what `max_pages` controls (default 5) or what URL formats are accepted, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (contact details: emails, phones, social profiles, name/address) and the exact sources it draws from (home, contact, about, imprint pages), so an agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling read_web_page, which is the closest adjacent tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 to find how to reach a business or enrich a lead" gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate. It offers no exclusions or explicit alternative routing (e.g., when to prefer read_web_page), but the positive use case is unambiguous.

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