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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds the behavioral nuance that only 'visible' text is extracted, which is a useful qualifier. However, it does not clarify behaviors like handling of hidden elements, multiple matches, or return format beyond what is implied.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It does not describe return details, but the phrase 'extract text' implies the return value, and the annotations provide read-only context. Slightly incomplete regarding selector usage edge cases.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'selector' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description only hints that a selector can target 'a specific element' but does not specify the selector format (e.g., CSS, XPath) or default behavior with null. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool extracts visible text from the page or a specific element, using a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('visible text'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_html and get_links by specifying 'visible text' rather than HTML or links.

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?

The description implies usage context: use for extracting visible text, optionally from a specific element. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_html or get_links, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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