Check a claim about a webpage

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the core return behavior (pass/fail and evidence snippet) and that the whole page is not returned, which is useful. But it does not mention potential side effects, network behavior, permissions, or the purpose of forceBrowser and ignoreRobots, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that leads with the verb 'Verify' and includes the key differentiator (not returning the whole page, pass/fail, evidence snippet). There is no wasted text.

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 and no annotations, the description must cover usage, behavior, and parameters. It explains the output format and assertion categories, but lacks guidance on when to use over siblings, nuances of selector and boolean flags, and failure behavior. It is minimally adequate for a 6-parameter tool but not complete.

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 only 33%, and the description partially compensates by grouping assertion types (text present/absent, element present/absent, exact text match), adding meaning to the assertion enum. However, it does not explain the selector scoping, forceBrowser, or ignoreRobots, so it only partially covers the parameter space.

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 what the tool does: verify page properties such as text presence, element presence, and exact text match. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it returns just a pass/fail and an evidence snippet rather than the whole page, aligning with scraping tools in the sibling set.

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?

The description implies its use for verification checks rather than content retrieval with the phrase 'without returning the whole page.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, making the guidance clear but not fully explicit.

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