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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the restriction to 'página pública permitida' (allowed public pages), the transformation to 'contenido principal' (main content), and the cost of 0.01 USD per call with x402. These go beyond the annotations and inform the agent about practical constraints and pricing.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the pricing detail is neatly appended. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It includes the allowed-page restriction, the main-content extraction, and the cost. No output schema exists, so no return-format explanation is required. Nothing essential is missing.

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 documents the url parameter (100% coverage) as a public HTTPS URL. The description adds the 'permitida' qualifier, which is more about tool behavior than parameter semantics. It does not add format or syntax details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (downloads a public page) and the output (main content in Markdown), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform specific extractions (e.g., extraer-changelog) by being a generic page-to-Markdown converter, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 context (so an agent can process without browsing HTML) but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling extraction tools. It does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the selection to inference.

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