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

Annotations mark this non-read-only, open-world and non-idempotent, and the description usefully explains why: it spends one 'read' per page and persists results to Puley history. It also discloses how pages are discovered (sitemaps and links). It does not cover failure behaviour, timeouts, or what happens when fewer than the requested pages are found.

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?

Front-loads the core capability and per-page cost, then parameter meanings, then use cases — a sensible order with no filler. The colon-and-parenthetical style makes some sentences dense run-ons, but nothing is redundant.

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 no output schema, the description does describe the return shape ('each page's main text side by side'), which is the key missing piece for a caller. Cost and persistence are covered; edge cases such as partial results or sites without sitemaps are the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it largely does: focus is defined as words used to pick pages (with examples), pages is bounded 1-25 with default 10, and link is explained via the homepage/section-path examples. It never names the link parameter explicitly or clarifies URL format constraints, so the mapping is inferred rather than stated.

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 and resource with explicit scope: read up to 25 pages of ONE website, starting from the homepage or a section path. The 'one site, many pages, main text side by side' framing implicitly separates it from single-page siblings like read or see_page, though no sibling is named outright.

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?

Gives concrete use cases: comparing a company's plans, policies or products across pages, or summarising a blog or help centre. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming read / see_page as the alternative for a single URL.

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