Analyze Webpage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context like captcha detection and blank-page signals but does not disclose execution-related behaviors (e.g., javascriptCode execution) or output details. This adds some value without contradicting 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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences that convey the purpose and use cases without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 14 parameters and no output schema, the description remains at a high level, omitting essential details about parameter behavior, required inputs beyond URL, and return values. This is insufficient for correctly invoking the tool in varied scenarios.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 14 parameters. It only mentions high-level use cases without mapping them to parameters like enableSummary, enableQuality, or format. This leaves agents without crucial parameter-level guidance.

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 captures and analyzes a webpage, with specific use cases (content summaries, SEO metadata, headings, quality signals). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like screenshot and compare, which likely focus on different operations.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (summaries, SEO inspection, headings extraction, quality detection) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives. The context is sufficient for basic selection guidance.

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