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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior-tweak. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the operation is paid, returns bounded output, and includes an evidence hash and receipt metadata. It repeats 'read-only' from the annotation, but the additional behavioral signals are meaningful. It omits failure modes or rate limits, though the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: a compact label, a behavior statement, and a usage condition. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool with read-only/idempotent annotations and no output schema, the description captures the essential behavior, output components, and usage context. It doesn't specify exact boundaries or pricing details, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly. Minor omissions prevent a perfect score.

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 coverage is 100% for the single url parameter, including format and description. The description's 'one public web URL' reinforces the schema but doesn't add new semantic meaning. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetches one public web URL and returns bounded clean text plus evidence hash and receipt metadata.' This precisely identifies the tool's action and output. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like griddata_domain and gridverify_evidence, which target different resources and operations.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use when an agent needs compact machine-readable page content.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the provided context is clear enough for routing.

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