Extract Clean Byte-0 Markdown & Schema Tables from URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real context beyond that — HTTP-only extraction, no API key required, output shape (GFM with front-loaded Schema.org tables) and the token-limit rationale. It stops short of error behavior or failure modes, so not 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 doing distinct work: what it produces, when to use it, and when not to. The output format and scope are front-loaded before the alternative-tool exclusion.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return value — and it does, specifying clean GFM with Schema.org tables and the 25k-token truncation bound. Combined with the no-API-key and read-only notes, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including an example URL, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further parameter syntax or constraints, making the baseline 3 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 (strips/extracts) and resource (clean Byte-0 GFM Markdown from a URL), and enumerates exactly what is removed (hydration scripts, Liquid/WordPress bloat, inline SVG/CSS). It also names the sibling it is not (audit_ai_readiness), so an agent can discriminate without opening either schema.

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?

Gives both sides: use it when you need to read a page or pricing table inside an LLM context window without hitting the 25,000-token truncation limit, and explicitly says not to use it for a readiness score or robots.txt check, routing to audit_ai_readiness. When/when-not/alternative are all present.

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