webpage_reader

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: per-call cost ($0.009 USDC), latency (p99 3200ms), resource scope ('ONE' page), execution method (real Chromium), and the exact shape of the return (rendered text plus title, description, word_count, optional links). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a read tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then routing guidance, then params, cost, and latency — a logical order with no filler. Slight deduction because the inline 'Params:' enumeration duplicates information already contained in the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates return fields (title, description, word_count, optional links), and it covers cost, latency, single-page scope, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters with types and defaults. The description's 'Params:' line only restates names and the max_chars default without adding syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read ONE JavaScript-heavy page') with a precise technical qualifier ('in a real Chromium browser') and names the exact family of pages it targets (SPAs, dashboards, post-load content). An agent can immediately distinguish it from web_scrape, web_read_batch, and page_extract.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('only when web-scrape returns little or no content') and when not to (slower and pricier than web-scrape), naming the alternative directly. This is textbook when/when-not/alternative routing.

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