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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses latency/quota cost of deep reads, what gets quoted and why, accuracy caveats ('signal, not a verdict', 'can be wrong in both directions'), and an ethical guardrail against using scores to accuse. This is well beyond the minimum.

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?

Long but front-loaded and dense with earned content – scope, behavior, limits, caveats each appear once. Slightly heavy for a 3-parameter tool, but no filler sentences.

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, and the description compensates by describing the return (score, band, reasons by name, address read, word count) plus the readable formats. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description only echoes deep=true's slowness/quota cost and never mentions lang, so it adds little beyond the schema; 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 specific pair of verbs (read + score) on a specific resource (a public https:// web page) and names the sibling it mirrors ('exactly as scan_text does'), so an agent can distinguish it from scan_text by input type alone. The output shape (score, band, reasons) is also previewed.

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?

Explicitly bounds where it applies ('public web page', 'web pages, plain text and PDF files') and where it does not ('private, local or internal addresses cannot'), and routes the thorough path via deep=true. It doesn't state a when-not vs scan_text beyond the equivalence hint, but the URL requirement makes the choice clear.

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