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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint; the description adds context about article extraction and HTML-to-Markdown conversion, which clarifies the tool's internal processing beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function and providing usage context. No redundant information, and the key points are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers core functionality, prerequisites, and usage scenario. With full schema coverage and an output schema, it is reasonably complete. Lacks mention of error conditions or rate limits, but these are often handled by the 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description aligns with schema parameters (url, html) but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides.

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 'clean Markdown version', which clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools (snapforge_pdf, snapforge_screenshot, snapforge_signup) by focusing on Markdown output and mentioning the API key requirement.

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 includes a clear usage scenario ('Great for feeding live web content to an LLM') and prerequisite handling ('no key? call snapforge_signup first'). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit differentiation.

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