web_to_readable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds the useful context that files (Markdown/JSON/HTML/images) are written as a side effect and that PDF is off by default. It does not say where artifacts are written, what happens on fetch failure, or whether repeated calls overwrite output — meaningful gaps for a non-idempotent write tool. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 the default entry-point claim and the one-call-read guarantee, then the optional behaviors. Dense but efficient; the closing sentence '全流程由脚本执行' adds little actionable information.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return shape (markdown field and first text content block), the default full-text behavior, and the PDF opt-in. It leaves artifact location and the wait_seconds/wait_selector tuning unaddressed, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds selection logic for include_pdf, paper/orientation, and max_content_chars, but wait_seconds and wait_selector have no documentation in either the schema or the description, leaving two parameters opaque.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination: read a web page, extract the main body, archive Markdown/JSON/HTML plus images, and return the Markdown in a single call. It also positions itself as the 'default entry point' and says no second read is needed, which implicitly separates it from read_exported_article. It stops short of naming the sibling outright, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: default behavior returns full text, set max_content_chars only when truncation is wanted, and set include_pdf=true only when the user asks for a PDF. No explicit 'do not use this when…' or named alternative is given, so an agent must infer the boundary with read_exported_article.

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