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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains the deterministic nature (no LLM), stripping method (DOM density heuristics), output fields, provenance receipt, and cost per call. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core transformation and is well-structured despite being long. Every sentence adds value (behavior, cost, differentiation). Could be slightly more concise, but still efficient.

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 fully covers the return format, deterministic behavior, stripping method, and cost. It provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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 single parameter (url) has 100% schema coverage with description. The tool description adds the constraint of http/https and max length, but does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool converts a URL into a clean article record with specific fields (title, byline, etc.) and distinguishes itself from raw markdown via sibling tool reference. It uses a specific verb 'URL → a clean ARTICLE record' and explicitly calls out the differentiation.

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 implies usage for obtaining a clean-citation primitive versus raw markdown, and mentions deterministic behavior, but does not explicitly list when to avoid or compare to all siblings (e.g., fetch, extract). Still provides clear context for selection.

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