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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies the tool does not execute JavaScript or bypass access controls, and mentions bounded caching behavior. However, 'bounded' and 'normalized' are not fully explained, leaving some ambiguity about the exact text processing.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: core function, usage constraints, and parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the main action, no redundant or extraneous information, and highly scannable for both human and AI readers.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown but acknowledged) and the rich annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, its limitations, and parameter behavior. There is no need to describe return values as the output schema handles that. The description feels complete for an agent to use 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%, with both parameters (url and fresh) already well-documented in the input schema. The description essentially rephrases the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., the fresh parameter's purpose is identical). It adds no new semantic meaning beyond what an agent can already infer from the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the tool returns 'bounded normalized readable text' from a URL, specifying it's for public HTTP(S) resources. It effectively communicates the core function but does not explicitly distinguish it from similar sibling tools like web.url.markdown or web.url.rag_chunks, though the specificity of 'normalized readable text' implies a focused use.

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 provides explicit guidance: use only for public HTTP(S) resources, avoid private URLs, and keep fresh=false for cache reuse. It clearly states what the tool does not do (execute JavaScript, bypass access controls) and explains when to set fresh=true, making it easy for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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