Read a website

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this reaches outside the system. The description adds genuinely new information beyond that: it returns the extracted content and explicitly does not save anything, which resolves whether this is a mutation or a transient read.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then when to use it, then the return/persistence behavior. Minor redundancy between "so the brand can be described from it" and "before writing copy or setting the brand," but nothing wasteful enough to impair scanning.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials: purpose, trigger condition, return shape, and the non-persisting nature. It could be stronger by noting failure behavior for unreachable URLs or whether summarisation is lossy, but nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the url field including the https:// format requirement. 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 pairs a specific verb set (fetch and summarise) with a clear resource (a website) and states the downstream purpose (describing the brand). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_brand or update_brand_voice, which operate on already-stored brand data rather than fetching external content.

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?

"Use this when the user gives a URL and you need to know what the business actually is before writing copy or setting the brand" gives an explicit triggering condition and a workflow position. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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