get_page_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is 'lightweight' and for 'quickly checking,' which hints at performance characteristics, but doesn't detail behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'status' specifically means (e.g., HTTP status codes). It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds usage context. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope and when to use it, with zero wasted words.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose and usage guidelines well. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it could benefit from more behavioral details, but the output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 1 parameter (url) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose (e.g., it doesn't specify URL format requirements or validation). With low schema coverage, the description doesn't compensate adequately, but since there's only one parameter, the baseline is slightly higher.

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 purpose: 'Get basic information about a webpage (title, description, status).' It specifies the verb 'get' and the resource 'webpage' with concrete examples of what information is retrieved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scrape_webpage' or 'extract_structured_data' beyond mentioning it's 'lightweight' and for 'quickly checking page accessibility.'

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'for quickly checking page accessibility and getting basic metadata without full content extraction.' This implies it's suitable for lightweight checks versus more intensive extraction tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as for detailed content analysis.

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