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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it enumerates what gets stripped, discloses the notable limitation that plain-div cookie banners survive, states the failure mode (503 on bot-blocked pages), and spells out the billing model including that failed calls are free. This is exactly the operational context an agent needs before paying per call.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior, then the cleaning rules, then the failure mode, then pricing. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

Return values need not be explained since an output schema exists, and the description covers scope, extraction target, exclusions, failure mode, and cost. The one real gap is disambiguation from the near-duplicate markdown-cleaning sibling.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the url and its 2048-char cap. The description reinforces the public-http(s) constraint but adds no format, canonicalization, or redirect-handling detail beyond the schema, so this lands at the baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Reader view of one public https page' returning title and main/article/body content as Markdown, with an explicit element-removal list. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling agent_intel_html_dom_to_clean_markdown, which sounds like the same job, so an agent still has to guess between them.

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?

Usage context is implied by the scope ('public https page', 503 for blocking sites), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative, despite closely overlapping siblings like html_dom_to_clean_markdown and web_search_turbo. The agent must infer selection from the description alone.

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