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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: robots.txt compliance, SSRF guarding, HTML-only restriction, 1 MB / 5 s caps, no JS rendering, and the $0.003 x402 price are all disclosed. These are exactly the operational traits (safety, limits, cost) an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output, followed by constraints and cost. Every clause carries new information; nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 still names the return values (title plus Markdown with headings, links, lists, code, tables) and covers limits, eligibility, and pricing. Nothing material is missing for an agent to decide and invoke 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 description coverage is 0% and there is one parameter. The description adds the meaningful 'public' constraint (no authenticated/private URLs), but says nothing about URL formatting or the 2000-char limit, which the schema pattern only partially conveys. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema warrants a middle score.

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?

States a precise verb+resource pair ('Fetch one public web page and return its title and clean Markdown') and names the rendered output formats. The word 'Fetch' combined with 'one public web page' distinguishes it from the pure-text-processing siblings (html_clean, keyword_extract) that operate on supplied content rather than retrieving URLs.

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?

Gives clear scope and implicit exclusions: 'public' page, 'HTML only', 'No JavaScript rendering' tell the agent when this tool will fail. It does not, however, name or route to an alternative when those conditions do not hold, so it stops short of explicit when-not/alternative guidance.

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