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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it does not execute JavaScript and does not bypass access restrictions. This is important for an agent to predict failure modes. It could go further by mentioning rate limits or response size, but the key behavioral constraints are disclosed.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and output types, and the second sentence states critical limitations. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with a simple input schema and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers what the tool extracts, the access constraints, and the JavaScript limitation. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return format or error behavior, but with one parameter and no output schema, the description carries the burden well.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'url' parameter as a public HTTP or HTTPS URL. The description adds the context that the URL must be 'accessible' and 'public', which reinforces the schema. However, it does not add new syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('readable text, Markdown, headings, HTTP links, and tables from one accessible public webpage'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like tablelift_extract_tables by covering multiple content types, not just tables. The phrase 'one accessible public webpage' also sets a clear scope.

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 implies when to use this tool: for public webpages that need readable text/Markdown extraction. It explicitly states what it does NOT do ('Does not execute JavaScript or bypass access restrictions'), which helps an agent avoid using it for dynamic or restricted pages. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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