Analyze page evidence

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: this is adapter-free and stateless, neither controlling nor preserving a browser session — exactly the trait that separates it from the browser-driving siblings. It stops short of stating cost, limits (e.g. the 2MB/500KB caps), or rate behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the input scope before the environment caveat, with no filler. Slightly under-specified rather than padded, but structurally sound.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing what the analysis returns — and it says nothing about the result shape, verdict, or confidence. For a 5-parameter tool with 20% schema coverage and no return documentation, an agent cannot predict the response, which is a material gap.

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 coverage is only 20% (only 'url' is documented), so the description has to compensate — and it does partially by naming all five inputs (URL, title, HTML, text, runtime signals), which helps the agent map arguments. It adds no semantics about form, precedence, or how runtime_signals strings should look, so it lifts the baseline only modestly above the schema.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('Analyze') and enumerates the input resource types (URL, title, HTML, text, runtime signals), so the agent knows what it operates on. However, it never says what the analysis is *for* — no mention of CAPTCHA classification, scoring, or verdicts — and gives no basis for distinguishing it from the sibling captcha_inspect, whose purpose overlaps.

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 phrase 'already available to the calling agent' plus 'needs no configured browser adapter and does not control or preserve a browser session' implicitly tells the agent when this fits: when it already holds page evidence and has no live browser session. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, and no routing against captcha_inspect or captcha_wait, which is the main selection risk.

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