get_page_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Visible text" is a useful hint that only rendered content is returned (vs. raw markup or hidden nodes), but it says nothing about truncation, pagination, or how the page state is obtained.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably over-terse given the undocumented parameter and missing usage context.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a tool with an undocumented max_chars parameter and no usage routing, the description leaves real gaps an agent needs filled before calling it 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?

The single parameter max_chars has 0% schema description coverage and no default/min/max explanation, yet the description never mentions it. The truncation behavior implied by max_chars is left entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Extract") and resource ("visible text from the current page"), which is clear enough to act on. However, it never differentiates itself from the many close siblings such as get_page_html, get_links, or evaluate_js, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of when this is preferable to get_page_html or get_links, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that a page must already be open). The description gives no routing help at all.

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