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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important traits: static HTML only, no JavaScript rendering, and a $0.002 USDC x402 cost. It does not detail error behavior, rate limits, or payment/auth mechanics beyond the cost, but the key limitations are surfaced.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then returns, then limitation, then cost. Every sentence adds useful information without padding.

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 and no annotations, the description does a good job listing return fields and stating the static-HTML limitation and cost. It is incomplete on the two optional parameters, but it covers enough for an agent to understand the tool's core behavior.

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 only 33%, and the description mentions only the public URL, matching the schema's existing description. It does not explain max_text_chars or timeout_seconds, leaving two optional parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Extract clean text from a public HTML article or document URL.' It also lists returned fields and use cases, but does not distinguish itself from similar siblings like canonical-web-scrape, convertUrlToMarkdown, html-to-text, or web-reader.

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 gives clear usage context ('document parsing, summarization, research and RAG') and a strong when-not constraint ('Static public HTML only; no JavaScript rendering'). It does not name alternative tools for dynamic pages, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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