from_site_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the result ({body_type, items}) plus an edge behavior ('unresolved' for unrecognized parameters). It does not say whether the URL is actually fetched over the network (as opposed to parsed locally), nor how invalid/malformed URLs are handled, which matters for a tool that consumes an external link.

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 short, front-loaded sentences (what it reads, what it returns, and the unresolved edge case) with no filler. The example is long but earns its place by showing the expected input format.

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 one-parameter conversion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the input concept, the return contract, and the partial-failure key. Only error/behavioral details (network access, invalid-URL handling) are missing, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 single url parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate; the embedded example URL (`.../#sex=male&body=Body_Color_light&...`) usefully illustrates the expected format and fragment-style query encoding. It still leaves open whether a full URL, scheme, or just the fragment is required, so it only partially fills the gap.

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+resource ('Lê um link do gerador LPC') and names the downstream consumer ('prontos para generate_character'), which lets an agent place it in the pipeline without opening the schema. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling to_site_url (the inverse operation), so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention that output is 'ready for generate_character', giving an agent a directional hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of to_site_url as the reverse-direction alternative, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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