Analyze (AI)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context that annotations cannot express: a metered cost of 1 credit per call, and the shape of the returned insight set. It stops short of noting latency, rate limits, or that caching defaults to off.

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?

Two tight sentences that lead with the core action and output list, then the cost. The opening 'Analyze (AI).' merely restates the title and is the only wasted fragment.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned insight fields, and the credit cost is disclosed. For a single-required-parameter read/analysis tool with full schema coverage, this is close to complete; only sibling differentiation and cost-bearing edge cases are absent.

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 every parameter including cache, proxy, fields, custom_prompt, and custom_response is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline, which is appropriate but not additive.

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 verb ('analyzes any webpage') and enumerates the concrete outputs (insights summary, value proposition, features, categories, use cases, contact signals), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like 'content' or 'website_crawler', which also operate on webpages.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'analyzes any webpage' suggests it is for AI-derived insight extraction, and the credit-cost note hints it is a paid call to use deliberately. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to the sibling tools that also take URLs.

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