netintel_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose substantive behavior: which DOM elements are stripped versus preserved, that PDFs yield only the text layer, and that output includes a quality grade. It stops short of stating failure modes beyond bot-walls (e.g., large-page truncation, timeouts, or auth requirements), which is the only real gap for an unannotated 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 verb, resource, and output format before the detail clauses, and every clause is informative rather than filler. The dense em-dash-packed middle sentence is long but not wasteful; slightly heavier than needed for a one-parameter tool.

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 compensates by naming the return fields (Markdown body, title, word count, quality grade), and it covers inputs, output shape, and the fallback path. For a single-parameter extraction tool, an agent has everything required to call it 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 0% for the single 'url' parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter accepts 'any URL' and clarifies that both HTML pages and PDF URLs are valid inputs, which is more than the bare 'url: string' schema conveys, but it adds no format, encoding, or redirect-handling detail.

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 ('Extract text from a web page or PDF as clean Markdown') and details exactly what the transformation does (strips scripts/nav/ads/boilerplate; preserves headings, links, lists, tables, code blocks, blockquotes). It also explicitly differentiates itself from a sibling by name (netintel_exa_contents), so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not condition with the alternative: 'For JavaScript-rendered or bot-walled pages a plain fetch can't read, use netintel_exa_contents instead.' The use case (plain HTML URLs and PDFs) and the failure case that should route elsewhere are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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