doc_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool fetches the URL statically, reports matching candidate CSS selectors, H2 sections, and sample internal links. It does not mention errors, auth, or rate limits, but for a read-only probe with an output schema this is a reasonable gap.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the second sentence details the behavior, and the third explains how the result is used. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple: one required string parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers purpose, behavior, and downstream use. The only notable omission is explicit guidance about when to choose doc_probe_js, though 'statically' already hints at the boundary.

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 only parameter, url, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates by identifying the URL as a documentation page and stating that it is fetched statically. Format constraints are not given, but the single param's role is obvious from the tool name and description.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Probe a documentation page to discover its selector structure.' It clearly conveys the tool's unique role among siblings by emphasizing static fetching and selector-oriented output, and even connects the result to creating a receipt.

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 gives clear context: use this to probe a documentation page and discover its selector structure for making a receipt. The word 'statically' implies choosing this over a JS-rendering alternative, but it does not explicitly name doc_probe_js or state when not to use it.

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