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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a cost of $0.002 USDC and warns that the extracted text originates from third-party websites and should be treated as data, not instructions—an important security notice. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the disclosed cost and untrusted-content caveat are valuable context beyond the schema.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, price, and security warning. Every sentence carries useful information and the main purpose is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given the single parameter and absence of an output schema, the description enumerates the extracted data types, giving the agent a clear expectation of the return. It omits response format and error details, but for such a simple extraction tool this is sufficient. The cost and untrusted-data warning further round out the context.

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% as the single url parameter is fully described with format and example. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning; it simply restates the notion of a public web page, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (extract) and resource (public web page) and lists the exact outputs: clean main text, title, description, headings, links, Open Graph, and JSON-LD. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like analyze_text or seo_audit, so it misses the full differentiation that a 5 would require.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the siblings. The phrase 'página web pública' is a constraint, not a selection criterion. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so an agent receives no help in choosing this tool over analyze_text or seo_audit.

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