Fetch a clean page preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the output format, the dead-link return values (`dead` or `unreachable`), and the caching behavior including how to bypass it via `refresh:true`. This gives the agent a clear mental model of the tool's runtime behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and caching details. Every sentence contributes new information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description effectively communicates what the tool returns (title, description, headings, excerpt, word count) and important edge cases (dead links, caching). For a tool with only two parameters, this is fully complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 with accurate descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that results are cached locally per URL and that `refresh:true` bypasses that cache, giving context to the `refresh` parameter beyond the schema's one-liner.

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 states the action: 'Fetch a bookmarked URL and return a short, structured preview' and lists exactly what the preview includes (title, description, headings, excerpt, word count). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it returns a concise summary instead of raw HTML, making it unique among the bookmark management tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this only when a title/URL alone isn't enough to triage a bookmark,' providing both a when-to-use and a when-not-to-use condition. It also gives a concrete use case (dead links can be retired without guessing) which helps the agent decide between this tool and alternatives.

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