Page Metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a key behavioral trait: the tool performs no network access, making it a pure parse of supplied input. It also enumerates the extracted categories, effectively describing the return surface. It stops short of stating determinism, malformed-HTML handling, or size limits (the 500000 cap lives only in the schema).

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 that packs the operation, the constraint, and the output inventory with zero filler. Every clause earns its place and the most decision-relevant fact ('no network access') appears early.

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 pure HTML-parsing utility with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it consumes, that it needs no network, and what it returns. The only gap is that the return values are named but not shaped, which is a minor omission for a summariser whose output is self-describing.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the url field's role in internal/external link classification. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Summarise') and resource ('HTML'), then enumerates exactly what is extracted (title, description, H1/H2/H3, link counts, forms, meta tags). The parenthetical 'no network access' cleanly distinguishes it from fetch_page, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

'No network access' implies the caller must already hold the HTML (i.e., fetch it via fetch_page first), but this is left to inference rather than stated. No sibling is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. Adequate implied usage, but not explicit routing guidance.

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