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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it strips boilerplate, returns specific metadata fields, works only on public pages, requires no API key/wallet, and does not charge for failed/empty reads. This fully discloses the tool's behavior and side conditions.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: main use case, cleaning behavior, access constraints, billing implications, and sibling routing. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and alternatives, and contains no filler or repetition.

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-only tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is complete: an agent knows what to pass, what to expect back, when to use it, when not to use it, and what side effects (charging) apply. 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 provides 100% coverage for the single URL parameter, including format and an example. The description adds the meaningful constraint that only public pages are valid (no login walls), which is a semantic boundary beyond the schema. This is a small but real addition, so a 4 is warranted rather than a baseline 3.

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 verb ('read'/'fetch and clean') and resource ('public web page as clean markdown'), and differentiates itself from siblings by naming the output (article body plus title, byline, date) and the cleaning behavior (strips nav, ads, boilerplate). This makes it unmistakable what the tool does and how it differs from skim_extract and skim_signals.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('when you need a public web page as clean markdown'), prefers it over HTML fetching/scraping/browser, and explicitly excludes login-walled pages, typed JSON (use skim_extract), and news/intel feeds (use skim_signals). This is model usage guidance with named alternatives.

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