Read text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'rendered text' and 'without markup' explains what the output looks like, going beyond the read-only hint. It does not repeat annotation information and adds nuance about the return 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?

Two sentences, no fluff, and the core behavior is front-loaded. The first sentence states exactly what the tool does, and the second gives practical usage. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only tool with many parameters, the description adequately explains the purpose and return content. It does not mention paging (offset/maxChars) or how to target an element, but the schema covers those details, and the annotations convey safety. The description is complete enough for an agent to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 88%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides; it mentions 'element subtree' which loosely relates to css/ref but does not explain selector mechanics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and clearly identifies the resource: the rendered text of the page or an element subtree. It adds the key distinction 'without markup' and gives concrete use cases (verify copy, read results, check error message), which separates it from sibling tools like browser_snapshot or browser_query.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('verify copy, read results, or check an error message'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it (e.g., 'if you need raw HTML, use browser_snapshot'). This is clear context without exclusions.

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