sitepeek: read a web page's metadata (title, Open Graph, feeds, JSON-LD)

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: cost (USD 0.002), free quota (5 static renders per IP per UTC day), expected latency (0.3-1 s), the no-browser execution model, and an untrusted-content warning keyed to the `untrusted_content:true` flag that tells the agent not to act on page content.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and alternatives, then returns, then operational facts, then the safety warning and docs link — a sensible ordering with no filler sentences. It runs long, and the field-by-field return enumeration is partly redundant with the existing output schema, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage, and a named query pattern, the description supplies everything an agent needs to call it correctly: scope, alternatives, cost/quota, latency, and a security caveat about untrusted extracted data.

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?

There is a single required `url` parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the meaning ('Public http(s) URL of an HTML page'). The description adds only marginal clarification ('static HTML', 'public web page'), which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 precise verb+resource ('read a public web page's metadata from its static HTML') and enumerates exactly what is returned (title, og, twitter, icons, feeds, json_ld_types, headings, link counts). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two most confusable siblings, render_page and extract_links, so an agent can route without opening 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 names two concrete alternatives with the condition that selects each ('For the readable text use render_page; for every link use extract_links'), which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of stating when this tool is the wrong choice (e.g. JS-rendered pages that need a browser) beyond the implicit 'static HTML (no browser)' qualifier.

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