parse_page

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations. It discloses the is_binary detection mechanism and the instruction to switch tools without retry loops. It also mentions the timeout clamping behavior. These are beyond what readOnlyHint and openWorldHint provide, and nothing contradicts the annotations.

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?

The description is compact and well-organized with clear sections and a bullet-like list of return fields. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value—usage instructions, output fields, and binary handling—without redundancy.

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?

The description lists all return JSON fields, covers edge cases (binary detection and switching), mentions the timeout behavior, and provides clear usage guidance. With the output schema present, the description still adds valuable operational context, making it complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions (url and timeout). The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but it reinforces the URL type by mentioning 'HTML articles' and excluding binary files. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads an HTML web page and returns cleaned markdown as JSON. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool fetch_binary by specifying when to use it (HTML pages) and when not (binary files). The verb 'read' plus the resource 'HTML web page' makes the purpose very specific.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections are provided, naming the alternative tool fetch_binary. It also gives a specific fallback instruction: if is_binary=true, switch to fetch_binary and do not retry parse_page in a loop. This completely covers when and when not to use the tool.

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