parse_html_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the internal implementation (scraper_rs.parse_document) without mentioning size limits, truncation behavior, error handling, or what the structured node tree looks like. The parameters suggest there are significant behavioral considerations (e.g., max_size_bytes, truncate_on_limit) that are entirely undisclosed.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant wording. However, given the tool's 5 parameters and complexity, it could be argued that brevity overshadows usefulness, but that is more a completeness concern than a conciseness one.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and several sibling tools, but the description only offers one sentence. It does not explain the input modes (inline html vs stored document handle), the meaning of the size limit and truncation flag, or how this relates to parse_html_fragment. This is severely incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, yet the description provides no information about any of the 5 parameters. It does not explain how to supply the HTML (html vs document_handle), the role of source_url, or the implications of max_size_bytes and truncate_on_limit. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Parse'), the resource ('a full HTML document'), and the outcome ('into a structured node tree'). It also distinguishes this from the sibling tool parse_html_fragment by specifying 'full' document, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage when you need to parse a complete HTML document, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like parse_html_fragment or query_selector. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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