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

It adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the page is third-party content, must be treated as data rather than instructions, and prices or hours must not be invented from it. It also describes the return shape as readable text and candidate photos. The only gap is that it does not reconcile the read-only framing with readOnlyHint=false.

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 access prerequisite and core action, then layers in workflow, safety, and skip guidance. Every sentence adds a distinct operational rule with no filler.

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 one-parameter read/import tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: auth scope, input expectation, return contents, follow-up workflow, prompt-injection caution, and when not to call it. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single url parameter, including its format and rate limit. The description reinforces the expected page types (website, listing, public profile) but does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: it takes the address of a page the business already has and returns readable text and candidate photos. It also distinguishes the tool from owner_setup by positioning this as the input step before a single owner_setup submission.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use at the start when the owner has a web page. It also states when to skip it: when the owner describes the business in their own words, and it limits use to signed-in business owners.

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