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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the sparse readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: caps (10 tables, 200 rows), script-rendered exclusion, robots.txt compliance, 403 on disallowed pages, and x402 payment terms. This is genuinely useful pre-call context.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences: output shape first, then limits, then constraints, then pricing. No filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values; it still covers limits, script-rendering limitation, robots.txt behavior, and billing, leaving nothing material unsaid.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'url' with an example. The description adds no per-parameter detail, which is fine at 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Every HTML table of a web page as JSON') and enumerates the exact output shape (caption, headers, rows). Distinguishable from scraping/extraction siblings like extract, read, and pdf.

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?

Implicitly tells the agent this is for HTML tables, not JS-rendered ones, but doesn't name alternatives (e.g., extract, read, ocr) or when to prefer them. Usage context is implied rather than guided.

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