Extract Text from URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral nuance: lean mode, no evidence bundle stored, no bundle_id returned, and final_url after redirects. It also restricts to public HTTPS URLs, which is useful context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core function, then provides alternatives, return structure, and example prompts. It is well-structured, with each section earning its place and no redundant filler.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, return format, and example prompts. With output schema and annotations present, nothing critical is missing.

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 covers the single url parameter with a description and example (100% coverage). The description reinforces the HTTPS requirement and provides example prompts, but adds little else beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb+resource: 'Fetch a public HTTPS URL and return extracted text and page metadata.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives for summaries, Q&A, translation, and file uploads, making the tool's unique role explicit.

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?

Explicitly directs when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use url.summarize for summaries, url.qa for Q&A, url.translate for translation, document.extract_text for base64 file uploads.' It also notes the lean mode with no bundle storage, implying a lightweight use case.

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