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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses important behavior: it costs 1 credit, only reads public pages, and does NOT save the result. It does not cover failure modes or output limits, but the key operational traits are stated.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by cost and persistence guidance, all of which matter for correct use.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return value, credit cost, and critical persistence behavior. It could add error handling or output format details, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented as id from list_agents and a public http(s) URL. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that the URL must be public, which matches the schema baseline.

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: reads a public web page and returns a knowledge text block. It also clarifies that the result is not saved, which helps distinguish it from tools that persist knowledge, though it does not explicitly name siblings like scan_website_quick.

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?

Gives clear usage context by explaining that to make the agent know the result, you must append it to company_description with set_agent_company. This is actionable guidance, though it does not explicitly compare against alternative website-scanning or document-adding tools.

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