sync_website

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully notes strict SSRF defenses and that claim extraction and contradiction discovery happen as part of the call, which hints at side effects. It omits whether this persists data, what happens on re-sync/duplicates, auth requirements, and rate limits, so coverage is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary action first and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the comma-separated clause list slightly underspecifies rather than overexplains.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the input action and the SSRF safety posture but omits persistence/side effects, expected return, and failure behavior. It is minimally adequate rather than 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 all three parameters (url, sourceName, runDiscovery) are already documented, including the runDiscovery default. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names concrete verbs and resources: fetches a public web page, extracts factual claims, and discovers contradictions. This makes the tool's job clear without opening the schema. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like sync_source or scan_source_for_contradictions, which overlap on the extraction/contradiction behavior.

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?

Usage is implied by 'explicit public web page' and the SSRF caveat, telling the agent this is for public web URLs only. However, it never says when to prefer this over sync_source, sync_document, or the scan_* contradiction tools, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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