Get HTML

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns one element only, reports how many matched, and uses the nth parameter to select a different match. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not mention truncation behavior covered by max_chars.

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 no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important selection behavior is stated compactly without redundancy.

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?

Together with the fully documented schema, the description covers the key selection semantics and parameter usage. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's mention of matched-count reporting and nth selection, though explicit return-shape details are not provided.

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 schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the nth parameter's purpose ('pick a different one') and the one-element-return behavior, which supplements the schema's more formal definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and identifies the resource ('HTML of a page or element'), and it distinguishes itself from text-oriented retrieval by saying 'rather than text.' However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as get_page_content or query_elements, so differentiation is clear but not exhaustive.

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 explicit guidance on when to use it: when markup, attributes, or structure are needed rather than text. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tool names, but the stated context is enough for an agent to route correctly.

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