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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral facts: a $0.01 USDC-on-Base charge per call, x402 payment via params._meta, and the raw HTTP endpoint. However, it omits failure behavior, rate limits, and what happens when payment is absent, and the payment location it cites (params._meta) does not exist in the input 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 sentences, no filler, with cost and endpoint front-loaded on their own line. The first sentence is an overstuffed run-on that crams four distinct operations together, which slightly hurts scanability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must imply return shape; it only says "get Markdown for up to 25 pages" without describing how multiple pages are keyed or ordered. The pricing and endpoint details are a genuine plus, but the schema/description mismatch on params._meta leaves an agent guessing how to actually pay.

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 three parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds only the 25-page cap, which the schema's max field already states, and says nothing about what the text/article/full mode enum actually changes in the output.

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 names a concrete resource and verb ("crawl a whole site's sitemap and get Markdown for up to 25 pages"), but it leads with three other capabilities (page-to-Markdown conversion, HTML table extraction, JSON-LD pulling) that belong to sibling tools webmd__extract, webmd__tables and webmd__jsonld. An agent cannot cleanly tell which capability this tool owns versus its siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the four sibling webmd tools are named as alternatives. The only routing signal is the parenthetical "For /sitemap: max pages" embedded in the schema, which the description never references.

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