Inspect Parsed HTML

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and succeeds: discloses return status ('status="ready"' only when node-backed HTML exists, else not-ready state), page count cap, and exclusions ('no page images, no bounding boxes'). This goes beyond simple read/write hints.

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?

Four tightly written sentences: purpose, usage pattern, behavioral guarantee, and alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no redundancy with schema descriptions.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately conveys return status and rendering type. It covers key constraints (page cap, canonical nodes) and distinguishes from view_document. Minor gap: doesn't mention error/not-found behavior for invalid document_id, but overall sufficient.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining page behavior (omit vs pass), and clarifying deprecated parameters (facet, parse_facet, parse_if_missing) as no-ops. It doesn't cover selector semantics, but schema already does.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show the STRUCTURED text output of a parsed document' with specific details about canonical nodes rendered as webpage-like HTML. It explicitly contrasts with view_document ('For the visual extraction... instead, use view_document'), distinguishing it from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: omit page for all pages (capped ~50) or pass page for specific page. Clearly directs users to view_document for visual extraction, offering a concrete alternative. Also clarifies canonical vs vendor facets implicitly guiding when to use.

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