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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It is transparent about what the tool returns (install links, instructions, CDP routes), qualifies that it handles pages 'this endpoint cannot read', and even warns about 'traps that cost time'. It lacks exact output shape, but for an informational tool this is reasonable.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists returns, then gives usage guidance. It is three sentences and dense, though phrases like 'the sources it hands back' and 'traps that cost time' are slightly vague and add a little wordiness.

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 tool with two well-documented optional params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main return content and key use cases. It explains both the 'human' path and agent-driven browser paths, making it reasonably complete, though a bit more detail on output structure would be helpful.

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 already provides 100% coverage with detailed enum descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by linking agent behavior to route types and browser to install links, e.g., 'for agents that drive their own browser, the unpacked-load and CDP routes'. This goes beyond the baseline 3.

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 purpose: getting a runnable route for saving a web page that the endpoint cannot read. It specifies the resource (web pages/citations), the action (get route/instructions), and the scope (install links, human instructions, CDP routes), distinguishing it from siblings like extract_citation.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this instead of guessing when a citation comes back complete:false, or when asked how to archive a source...' This is clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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