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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing content processing ('HTML stripped to plain text. JSON returned as-is') and security restrictions ('Blocked: localhost, private IPs, .internal domains'). It also specifies the exact return structure, making the tool's behavior highly predictable. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or idempotentHint annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: function, usage guidance, return format, and key behavioral details. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and is free of redundancies or 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 single-parameter tool, the description covers everything needed: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, how it processes content, and what URLs are blocked. Combined with rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) and an output schema described in the description, the context is fully complete.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with a detailed description of the 'url' parameter, including format and examples. The tool description adds no new semantics specifically about the parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'any public HTTPS URL' largely restates the schema's 'fully-qualified public HTTPS URL'). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 opens with 'Fetches clean text from any public HTTPS URL' – a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('clean text from URL'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like x711_web_search or x711_deep_search. The purpose is unambiguous and operationally precise.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Use x711_web_search first to find the URL, then this tool to read it,' providing a direct workflow and naming the alternative. The phrase 'public HTTPS URL' sets clear constraints on when the tool is valid, while 'Blocked: localhost, private IPs, .internal domains' adds exclusion criteria.

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