Page-only AI answer preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds behavioral value by clarifying the extractive-only nature (no inference beyond page content) and the confidence-reporting mechanism based on page structure. This adds genuine context beyond the annotations about what the tool does and doesn't do.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence covers function and behavior, the second clarifies a key limitation. Everything 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?

With strong annotations, a single fully-documented parameter, and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope well. The clarification about not simulating a proprietary AI platform is important for setting expectations. Missing minor details like what the output format looks like, but without an output schema this is acceptable for a preview/analysis tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'url' parameter fully documented as 'Public webpage URL'. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, but with full coverage and one simple param, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool builds an extractive answer using only on-page passages and reports confidence based on page structure. It distinguishes itself from proprietary AI platform simulation. However, while clear, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling aeo_* tools like aeo_ai_readability_audit or aeo_entity_coverage, though the 'page-only' scope and 'not proprietary' distinction help.

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 this is used when you want a page-native, extractive AI answer preview rather than a simulated proprietary AI response. The explicit 'It does not simulate a proprietary AI platform' gives context about what NOT to expect. However, it doesn't name alternative tools to use for proprietary simulation, nor give explicit when-to-use vs when-not scenarios.

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