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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It mentions the cost, the requirement for a public URL, and the nature of the output (cleaned text, truncated, top 20 links). It does not cover error behavior, rate limits, or auth needs, but what it discloses is accurate and useful.

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 a single sentence that front-loads cost and purpose, then lists output fields. It is efficient and well-ordered, with no wasted words.

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?

For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the input format for the URL, does not address error handling or edge cases, and omits any guidance on expected usage patterns. The agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the provided information.

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?

The input schema defines a single 'q' parameter described only as 'JSON or key=value input', which is entirely generic. The description does not explain how to pass the URL or what keys/format to use. Neither the schema nor the description provides actionable parameter semantics, making correct invocation impossible without external knowledge.

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 the tool fetches a public URL and lists the return fields (status, final URL, title, cleaned text, top 20 links). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like web_brief or free_url_check.

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 mentions a use case ('when an agent itself cannot reach the open web'), giving some context. However, it does not specify when to prefer this over alternatives or provide any exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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