tor_get_page_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether it requires an active page, what 'element counts' includes, or any limitations. With no additional context beyond annotations, the description does little to enhance transparency.

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 a single, focused sentence. It front-loads the primary action ('Get page metadata') and lists the specific outputs with no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a parameterless read-only tool with an output schema, and the description enumerates the key metadata fields returned. There are no hidden prerequisites or side effects to disclose, making the description sufficiently complete for its simple use case.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4.

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 retrieving page metadata (URL, title, description, element counts), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tor_get_links and tor_read_page, which handle links and page content respectively.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you need page metadata) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it compares to similar tools like tor_query_elements or tor_read_page, so the guidance is only implicit.

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