page.analyze

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies internal parallel execution, streaming support via _meta.progressToken, and the fact that results are unified. Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent, which the description does not contradict. The description enhances transparency about concurrency and real-time feedback.

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 only two sentences, both highly informative: the first states the purpose, the second explains parallel execution and streaming. There is no wasted text, and the structure front-loads the main action.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (15 parameters, nested options, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not summarize what the 'unified results' contain, nor does it mention key optional features like responsiveness, accessibility, or performance analysis. The agent may need more context to set expectations, especially without an output schema.

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 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning or context for parameters; it only mentions streaming (which is protocol-level, not a parameter). No credit for redundancy.

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 tool's core function: 'Analyze a web page URL with layout detection, motion pattern extraction, and quality evaluation.' It identifies the specific resources and actions (layout, motion, quality) and differentiates from sibling tools like layout.ingest and motion.detect by positioning this as a composite tool that runs them in parallel and returns unified results.

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 explains the parallel execution of three sub-tools, implying this is the right choice when a comprehensive analysis is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool (e.g., if only one analysis type is required) or mention alternatives. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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