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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: robots.txt is respected, page text is untrusted (a prompt-injection warning), and unparseable hours must be reported rather than fabricated. It does not mention rate limits, caching, or failure modes for unreachable sites.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two grounding constraints. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does name the parsed fields, plus gives an explicit fallback behavior when parsing fails. Minor gap: it does not describe the shape of the response or what happens on network/robots.txt refusal.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both url and the example flag are fully documented in the schema, including the fixture-toggle behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (fetch the restaurant's public website) plus the exact artifacts extracted (hours, phone numbers, menu links). This clearly separates it from get_google_listing/get_yelp_listing, which serve the same restaurant data from different sources.

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?

Usage is implied by the extracted fields rather than stated: an agent infers this is the tool for hours/phone/menu from the restaurant's own site. It never names get_google_listing or get_yelp_listing as alternatives or says when the website is preferable to a listing API, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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