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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: JavaScript is not executed, output size and fetch time are bounded, and returns specific fields like title, author, publication time, language, content hash, truncation and cache state. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.).

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by return value summary and concise parameter guidance. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy or verbosity.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, its constraints (no JS, bounded output), and parameter behavior. It is fully adequate for correct tool selection and invocation.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by clarifying usage of include_links ('only when needed') and fresh ('reuse cache'). While url is well-documented, the extra nuance for boolean parameters lifts the score above 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?

The description clearly states the tool extracts normalized main text and optional links from public HTTP/HTTPS documents. It uses specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like web.url.text (raw text) or web.url.links (just links) by mentioning 'normalized main text' and optional links.

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 gives specific guidance on parameter usage ('Set include_links=true only when normalized links are needed', 'Keep fresh=false to reuse cache'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks explicit differentiation from similar sibling tools.

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