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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying the supported page types (static and server-rendered HTML) and mentioning the optional actor-critic analysis pipeline. With annotations already indicating read-only and non-destructive behavior, this additional detail about operational constraints is valuable, though it does not elaborate further on failure modes or response behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope and optional behavior.

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?

The tool is simple (two parameters, one required) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the essential context: what it extracts, from where, and the optional analysis mode. It could be slightly more explicit about unsupported page types, but overall it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by tying the optional 'query' parameter to the actor-critic pipeline, clarifying that analysis is performed after extraction. This small enhancement helps the agent understand the intended workflow beyond the raw parameter descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Extract content from a web page URL,' which clearly states the primary action and target. It also differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on extraction rather than analysis or summarization, and the optional actor-critic pipeline adds a distinguishing feature.

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 a clear usage context by stating 'Works with static and server-rendered HTML pages,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the sibling list and the tool's purpose make the intended use reasonably clear.

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