Get the page HTML source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the result reflects the page after scripts ran, is not the original wire bytes, and differs from View Source. It does not detail truncation behavior or auth constraints, but for a read-only DOM inspection tool the disclosure is strong.

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 three efficient sentences, front-loads what is returned, then immediately clarifies the important distinction from raw network bytes. 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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-shape and semantic distinction. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and knows where to go if raw response bytes are needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both context and maxChars are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable at the baseline.

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 names a specific operation — returning the serialised DOM of a tab via document.documentElement.outerHTML — and clearly distinguishes it from raw network response retrieval. This lets an agent choose it over the network sibling tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (post-script DOM inspection) and when not to use it (raw bytes, View Source), naming the alternative network tools. The selection condition is clear and actionable.

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