Prepare a page for decisions

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

No annotations are present, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context - and it provides meaningful details: output is a state with ISO dates, unit-aware facts, anchored chunks, and a raw-vs-state token bill. It also signals cost behavior by recommending the cheap summary mode. It does not fully cover failure, authentication, or network behavior, but it goes well beyond a bare mutation/read label.

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 the purpose first and the mode guidance second. Every clause earns its place: no filler, repeated schema content, or vague preamble.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers the core decision (which mode and when to use sieve_chunk) and points to the output form (state, token bill). Parameter details and return values are covered by the 100%-covered schema and output schema; a short note on when markdown mode is preferred would make it fully complete.

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 parameters are already documented and the baseline applies. The description adds workflow advice for mode ('only when needed') but does not add new meaning for url, html, task, trace, maxChars, or maxTokens beyond what the schema states.

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?

Description uses a specific verb plus resource ('Turns a web page into decision-ready state') and enumerates concrete transformations: dates as ISO fields, numbers with units as facts, text in token-budgeted chunks with anchors, and a token bill. It also references the sibling tool sieve_chunk to clarify that chunk-text retrieval belongs elsewhere, so an agent can distinguish it.

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?

'Start with mode=summary; fetch chunk text with sieve_chunk or mode=full only when needed' is explicit guidance on the default workflow and when to switch to the sibling or a more expensive mode. This directly answers when to use this tool versus alternatives, with no inference required.

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