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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful constraint beyond that — the URL must be public — plus the JS-rendering capability, but says nothing about rate limits, timeouts, content-size truncation, or failure 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and back-loaded with the sibling routing hint. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 four-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose, output format, and alternative-tool routing. No output schema exists, but the return shape (text or HTML) is stated; only edge-case behavior like truncation or error handling is unaddressed.

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 schema already documents url, js, wait, and format. The description only echoes the format options ('plain text or HTML') and adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction details (e.g., that 'wait' only applies when 'js' is true) 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?

States a specific verb (extract) and resource (a public URL's content), and names the return formats (plain text or HTML). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling web-crawl, so an agent can choose between them without opening a schema.

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 sentence 'Preferred over web-crawl for new integrations' names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool, which is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., for non-public or authenticated pages beyond the implicit 'public URL' constraint).

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