preview_url_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the tool is read-only, the server never fetches, the agent must open the URL and paste visible text, and it returns a specific shape. It also warns not to write and to confirm with the human, adding critical behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a sentence describing the mechanism, and a sentence about the result and next steps. Every sentence adds value with no redundant or vague phrasing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool has only two simple parameters and an output schema, yet the description covers the purpose, safety, workflow, and return shape by referencing parse_cv. It also differentiates from sibling tools and includes the necessary confirmation step, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify the parameters. It explains that 'url' is the URL to open in the browser and 'page_text' is the visible page text to paste, which gives clear semantic meaning. However, it doesn't specify exact formatting requirements for page_text (e.g., raw vs sanitized), so a 4 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 is a read-only import preview for LinkedIn/GitHub/portfolio, with a specific mechanism (open URL in browser, paste visible text). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling import_from_url_findings by explicitly noting it does NOT write and requires confirmation first.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Does NOT write — CONFIRM with the human, then import_from_url_findings(url, confirmed_fields).' This names the alternative tool and clarifies that this is a preview step before a write action. Also states 'The server never fetches' to clarify the expected workflow.

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