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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false. On top of that the description discloses non-obvious behavior: the failure mode where price comes back null, and the price_source field that tells the caller where the price originated. It stops short of covering rate limits, timeouts, or partial-parse behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

One dense but well-ordered paragraph: transformation first, extraction sources next, include modes, then use cases and caveats. The long field enumeration is functional rather than padding, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract — and it does, listing the returned fields plus the price_source provenance indicator. Inputs (URL vs raw HTML), output modes, and the main failure mode are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining what include=markdown (LLM-ready Markdown copy) and include=jsonld (raw blocks) actually produce, and by framing html as a substitute for url rather than a companion.

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 precise verb+resource ('Turn a product page URL (or raw HTML) into clean JSON') and enumerates exactly which fields come back (name, brand, SKU/GTIN/MPN, price, currency, availability, images, rating, offers). The extraction sources (JSON-LD, microdata, OpenGraph) further pin down what the tool is. No siblings exist, so no differentiation is needed.

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 explicit use cases ('price checks, competitor monitoring and catalog enrichment') and a clear limitation: bot-blocked or JS-rendered pages can yield price null. It does not state when *not* to use the tool or any alternative, but with no sibling tools that omission is minor.

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