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

Annotations already declare readOnly and openWorld, but the description adds traits they don't cover: robots.txt compliance, the 10-page ceiling, output composition, and the pricing/auth model ($0.03 USDC via x402 or prepaid credits, free trial). That is genuine behavioral context beyond structured fields; it only lacks detail on partial failures or rate limits.

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?

A single dense paragraph that is front-loaded with the core behavior and ends with price/trial metadata. Every clause carries information, though the pricing sentence is slightly tangential to invocation guidance.

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 and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers discovery method, limits, compliance, and cost. Complete enough to call correctly; only sibling routing is thin.

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 description coverage is 100%, so url, path, and maxPages are already documented, including the path default and the 1-10 bound. The description only reinforces the page cap and output fields, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+scope: turns a small website or one section into clean Markdown, and names the discovery mechanism (sitemap or same-site links) plus the return shape (title, Markdown, address, up to 10 pages). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like sitemap, markdown, or extract without opening a schema.

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?

"Great for docs, blogs and company sites" implies when it fits, and "small website, or one section of it" implies the scale boundary. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and never names alternatives (e.g., sitemap for page discovery, extract for single-page reads), leaving routing to inference.

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