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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, safe, or what side effects exist. While 'Extract' implies a fetch operation, crucial behavioral details like network usage, auth requirements, or rate limits are missing.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the action and target, and the second lists the return fields. Excellent front-loading of purpose.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does and what it returns. It does not detail error behavior or non-news URLs, but the brevity is acceptable given the tool's simplicity. The listed return fields substitute for an output schema.

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 0% (the single 'url' parameter lacks a description). The tool description adds no extra meaning about the parameter's format, constraints, or expected input beyond its name. The description should clarify, e.g., that it expects a valid absolute URL.

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 uses a specific verb 'Extract' and resource 'main article content' from a news/blog URL. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fetch_url_content (raw content) and get_page_metadata (metadata) by targeting structured article extraction.

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 extracting clean article content from news/blog URLs, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for raw HTML or metadata) nor provide alternatives. The differentiation from siblings is implicit rather than explicit.

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