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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the return structure (reliability, proof rows, pagination notes, blockers), the raw-HTML-only limitation, and the prerequisite ordering. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting a blocked result as empty data.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action after a short hook, and the enumeration of plan contents is efficient. Slightly dense in the middle list, but every sentence contributes a distinct fact.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fully describes the return payload (ranked sources with reliability, proof rows, pagination, blockers, optional script). An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's 'Set include_code for a starter Python script' largely restates the schema's own wording, adding only minor framing about what the script is for. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetches one public page and returns a ranked extraction plan') and then enumerates exactly what the plan contains (JSON-LD, CSS selectors, tables, feeds, hidden APIs). This clearly separates it from siblings like xray_diagram or check_site.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use check_site first to learn whether the site allows scraping at all.' It also states a when-not condition — JavaScript-built pages report a blocker instead of data, so the agent knows the tool's limits before calling.

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