render

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

Annotations already state readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: real browser execution, wallet requirement, cost per call, and a security warning that page content is untrusted external data. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 two dense sentences that front-load the core function, then pack usage guidance, cost, and security context with no filler. Every sentence 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?

The tool has a single parameter, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, so no return-value explanation is needed. The description adds cost, security, and routing guidance, leaving no essential gap for an agent to call 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 already fully documents the single url parameter with 'Public http(s) URL to render' (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and output: renders a page in headless Chromium with JavaScript execution and extracts main content as clean markdown. It clearly distinguishes this from other tools by targeting SPAs and JS-heavy sites.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool (SPAs, JS-heavy sites), when not to (static pages via cheaper extract), and an alternative for pixel evidence (screenshot). This gives an agent clear decision guidance.

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