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

The description discloses credit consumption only on success, which is non-obvious and useful. It also clarifies synchronous return behavior. Annotations indicate readOnly=false and idempotent=false, and the description adds specific context about side effects, enhancing transparency.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides meaningful information without redundancy. It achieves high clarity in a compact form.

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 16 parameters and output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but omits important behaviors such as output formats, error handling, and most parameter options. The output schema fills some gaps, but the description alone is incomplete for a complex tool.

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?

With 16 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description only explains max_pages, leaving many critical parameters (e.g., formats, render_js, tags, fact_check) without semantics. This is a significant gap for effective tool invocation.

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 extracts content from a URL and is synchronous, returning content directly with no job_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_crawl, which likely operate asynchronously, and from get_job/get_usage which are not extraction tools.

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 clear context by highlighting synchronous behavior and direct content return, implying usage for immediate extraction needs. It does not explicitly name alternatives but the contrast with start_crawl's job_id is implied, giving reasonable guidance.

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