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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and addresses it thoroughly: deterministic heuristics, reproducible output, Ed25519-signed deliverables, in-memory-only processing, what metadata is retained, and fair-use limits. This goes well beyond the minimal mutation/read expectations and gives an agent a clear safety profile.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and most later sentences contain useful operational details rather than fluff. However, the privacy and ephemeral-disk details are longer than necessary for tool selection and invocation, so it is not maximally concise.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers inputs, output examples, determinism/signing, authentication, rate limits, and privacy. An agent has enough context to decide whether to call this tool and how to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining the core input ('Pass raw text (up to 100,000 characters) or a URL') and the free-flow usage via arguments.input. It also clarifies the quote_id context indirectly by noting no payment header is needed during the pilot, while the schema itself covers quote_id details.

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: 'Turn messy text or a web page into structured data' and enumerates concrete outputs (headings, links, tables, word counts). It also differentiates from the audit-style siblings by stating 'deterministic heuristics only: no LLM, no semantic understanding' and 'It extracts structure, not meaning.'

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to avoid spending context on parsing, and states how to invoke it ('just call this tool with arguments.input'). It draws a boundary with 'It extracts structure, not meaning,' but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use relative to the sibling audit tools.

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