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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not fetch URLs, execute a browser, or assert price-currentness, and it indicates the output includes SHA-256 provenance. This is transparent about what the tool does and does not do, though side effects or error behavior are not mentioned.

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, dense sentence without redundant words. It efficiently packs key information about input, output, and non-goals. While slightly long, every phrase adds value, making it well-structured for an API description.

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 the tool's complexity, the description covers the essential points: input requirements, output nature (normalized evidence with SHA-256 provenance), and limitations. It does not detail error handling or exact output schema, but the core functionality is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 provides only types and formats for source_url and html, with no descriptions. The description adds meaning by indicating html is product-page HTML and mentioning authorization, but it does not explicitly define each parameter's role (e.g., source_url as the origin for provenance). It partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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's function: converting caller-supplied HTML with schema.org Product JSON-LD into normalized Product/Offer evidence with SHA-256 provenance. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the input type and output format, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides usage context by specifying that HTML must be caller-supplied, authorized, and public, and it explicitly states non-goals (no URL fetching, no browser execution, no price-currentness claim). This helps an agent decide when to use this tool, though it could be more explicit about alternatives.

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