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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: deterministic extraction with no AI/browser, boilerplate stripping, execution on the user's Apify account, and pay-per-event billing at $0.002646/page.

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 two tight sentences with zero waste. The core capability is front-loaded, followed by distinguishing operational details (deterministic, no AI/browser, pricing).

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so by naming clean text, title, description, word count, and language. It also covers cost and execution environment, making it largely complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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%, so all three parameters—including pageUrls, maxChars, and apify_token—are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or constraints, so the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Fetch web pages and return clean readable text') and lists concrete outputs (title, description, word count, language). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like extract_article or extract_web_metadata.

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 through context—'Deterministic, no AI, no browser' and per-page pricing—but never states when to choose this over extract_article, extract_web_metadata, or probe_urls. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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