Get Page Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful 'cheap' performance characteristic and clarifies that it returns counts and metadata rather than full content. It does not contradict the annotations, but also adds limited behavioral context beyond them.

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 short sentences with no filler. The output fields are listed compactly and the usage intent is front-loaded with 'Page overview' and reinforced by 'Cheap orientation before deciding what to do.'

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 description lists the main returned fields and gives a clear use case, and the schema covers the only parameter and its fallback behavior. With no output schema, listing fields is helpful, though the exact shape of the response is not specified; overall adequate for a low-complexity tool.

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%, with tab_id fully documented including fallback behavior when omitted. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information because the schema already carries that burden; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool as a page overview that returns orientation data: title, URL, ready state, meta description, headings, and form/frame counts. It distinguishes itself from heavier siblings like get_page_content and get_html by emphasizing 'overview' and 'cheap orientation,' though it lacks a direct verb like 'gets'.

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?

'Cheap orientation before deciding what to do' explicitly frames when to use it: as a lightweight first step before deeper actions. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the orientation context is clear and actionable.

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