freedom_clean_scraper

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: multi-profile retry behavior, content stripping (scripts/ads/navigation), HTTP 402 payment gating with L402/x402 schemes, and pricing/SLA. It stops short of describing failure modes, rate limits, or response size limits, but the payment and retry disclosure is genuinely useful.

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 dense sentences with the core capability front-loaded after the pricing tag. The pricing/SLA parenthetical is sales-oriented but compact; no sentence is wasted, though the commercial framing is slightly noise for an agent.

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 2-param, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does, the transformation applied, the payment flow, and the return format (Markdown text). Failure/error behavior and pagination are absent but not essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (url, authHeader) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'public URL' constraint and restates the Markdown output, 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+resource ('Fetches a public URL ... returns clean Markdown text') and details the transformation ('strips scripts/ads/navigation'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like freedom_structured_extractor and freedom_stealth_unlocker, which imply different output/access goals.

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?

The description implies the use case ('for LLM context windows') and a constraint ('public URL'), but never spells out when to choose this over freedom_structured_extractor or freedom_stealth_unlocker. Usage context is implied rather than explicit, so it lands at minimum-viable.

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