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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: caching behavior with fallback to live crawl, a statuses[] array for per-URL failures instead of exceptions, measured latency, and flat billing. This fully informs the agent of side effects and error handling.

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 purpose, then logically flows through parameters, output, error handling, performance, cost, and alternatives. Each sentence provides useful information without redundancy, though it is a bit dense and could be tightened.

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?

With an output schema present and six parameters, the description covers the essential operational context: return structure, per-URL error reporting, caching, latency, cost, and a clear alternative. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the ids parameter (it takes URLs from post_exa_search) and lists the toggles, going slightly beyond the schema by clarifying the ids relationship. It does not dive deep into each parameter, but the schema already handles that.

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 fetches page text and metadata for URLs the agent already has, distinguishing it from search tools. It also names a specific sibling (post_firecrawl_crawl) for the whole-site case, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explains that ids come from post_exa_search and points to post_firecrawl_crawl as an alternative for whole sites, giving clear context on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions against other extraction tools, but the guidance is sufficient for most scenarios.

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