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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses determinism, model-free reproducibility, respect for robots.txt, cost, and the inference from ambiguity aversion. It lacks details on error handling or output format but is largely transparent.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then efficiently details signals, reasoning, and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value with 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains that each gap is returned with an inference, but does not specify exact output structure. However, for a simple checklist tool, this is largely complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds value by noting robots.txt respect for url and precedence of html over url, providing behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 checks which trust signals a page carries and which it omits, listing specific signals (pricing visibility, privacy and terms, contact routes, cancellation terms). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like psych_biases or psych_dark-pattern-detect, which address different psychological aspects.

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 use when assessing trust signals on a page through context, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the distinct focus on trust signals among siblings provides clear context.

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