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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds pricing info ($0.001/call) and lists exactly what fields are extracted, which is useful. However, it does not disclose limitations like failure on non-HTML pages, redirect handling, or that 'any web page' may be over-claiming.

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 plus a pricing note. The core function is front-loaded, followed by use cases, then price—every part serves a purpose with no 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, expected return fields, use cases, and cost. It misses edge-case behavior (e.g., pages that block bots or non-HTML responses), but the essential facts for calling it correctly are present.

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%: the sole parameter 'url' already has a clear description 'Target webpage URL'. The tool description adds no new semantic detail beyond mentioning 'web page', so it neither helps nor hurts beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb 'Extracts' with a clear resource list: OG tags, canonical URL, title, and meta description. This readily distinguishes it from siblings like scrape or link_graph, which handle broader or different content 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?

Provides explicit use cases: link previews, SEO audits, and content enrichment. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for meta-data extraction.

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