Check crawler readability

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld with destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: no JavaScript execution and an explicit prompt-injection warning that returned content is untrusted data rather than instructions. It does not mention rate limits or error/timeout behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what it inspects and reports, the JavaScript limitation, and the trust warning. Findings are front-loaded with no filler.

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 four-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states scope, the key non-behavior (no JS), and a security caveat. It could say a bit more about when to prefer siblings, but nothing needed to 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 all four parameters (url, maxChars, timeoutMs, userAgent) are already documented in the schema with defaults, ranges, and enum. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Inspect) and resource (HTML returned to one crawler user-agent) and enumerates exactly what is reported: metadata, headings, visible text, and app-shell heuristics. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_discovery_files and compare_http_responses, which address different artifacts.

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?

Implicitly scopes the tool to a single crawl profile and notes it does not execute JavaScript, which helps set expectations. However, it never states when to choose this over check_discovery_files or compare_http_responses, nor any prerequisites (e.g. that the URL must be publicly reachable).

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