page_source

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

The description discloses the truncation behavior tied to max_chars, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not clarify whether the HTML is the live rendered DOM or the original source, nor does it mention potential performance implications. With no annotations, it only partially covers the behavioral burden.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key qualifier about truncation. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary padding.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficient to convey the essential behavior. It lacks guidance on alternatives, but the tool is basic enough that the description covers most of what is needed. More detail about the return value or caveats could improve it, but the output schema likely covers the return type.

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 description directly explains the max_chars parameter as a truncation limit, which is meaningful given the schema has no per-parameter description. This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage, though it does not specify the exact counting unit (e.g., characters).

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 returns the raw HTML of the current page and mentions the truncation behavior, making it unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like screenshot or snapshot by specifying 'raw HTML', which is precise.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as snapshot or evaluate_javascript. It only states what it does, not when to prefer it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose.

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