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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says what it extracts but not how it behaves: whether it fetches a URL, performs a search across sources, follows redirects, requires network access, or has rate limits. The description is accurate but under-discloses operation details.

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 core statement 'Extract HTML comments' is concise and front-loaded. However, the leading 'HTML Comments:' is redundant with the tool name and title, and the description is too sparse to meaningfully support selection and invocation. It is short, but not optimally informative.

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 tool with one open-ended parameter, no annotations, and zero parameter documentation, the description is not enough. An agent still lacks the essential input format and behavioral context needed to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema may help with return structure, but not with how to call it.

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 sole parameter 'q' has zero schema description coverage and the description never explains what 'q' represents. An agent cannot confidently determine whether 'q' is a URL, domain name, search query, or something else. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema-level parameter 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Extract HTML comments.' The added detail 'leaked TODOs/paths/software' clarifies the intended use case and helps differentiate it from generic page-fetching or metadata tools. It is not quite a 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related HTML/reconnaissance siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, what kind of input to provide, or whether it is intended for URL scanning, domain reconnaissance, or raw HTML input. The 'leaked TODOs/paths/software' phrase implies security reconnaissance, but no explicit use conditions or exclusions are given.

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