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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description adds behavioral context: it does not execute JavaScript, does not bypass access controls, and explains cache reuse behavior via the fresh parameter. This enriches the agent's understanding of side-effect-free behavior and limits.

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?

Three sentences cover function, usage constraints, and parameter guidance without filler. The most important information is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, constraints, and parameter behavior. It does not need to explain return values since the output schema exists.

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% and both url and fresh are already thoroughly documented in the input schema (including SSRF rejection and cache semantics). The description adds minimal new meaning beyond restating the same guidance for fresh, so it meets the baseline rather than exceeding it.

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 bounded HTML tables into machine-readable rows, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling URL content extractors (markdown, text, headings) by its focus on tables.

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 explicitly states to use only for public HTTP(S) resources, notes that JavaScript is not executed and access controls are not bypassed, and gives concrete guidance on the fresh parameter (when to set true vs false). This provides clear selection and usage context.

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