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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it's powered by Jina Reader, costs $0.05 per call, and returns deduplicated markdown with source URLs. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the pricing and behavior are transparent.

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 description is somewhat repetitive, with the first and second paragraphs echoing similar information. It could be more concise. However, it is front-loaded with the most important details.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (clean markdown with deduplicated source URLs) and provides pricing and use case context. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's capabilities.

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 100%, but the description adds significant value with examples and clarifying conditional behavior (e.g., 'If set, scrape and extract this page as clean markdown instead of searching') and provides concrete example values for each parameter.

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 clearly states it performs web search and webpage extraction, returning clean markdown. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are mostly analysis or lookup tools, so no confusion.

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 tells the agent to use 'query' for search and 'url' for extraction, providing clear usage guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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