page-intel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The description only states the output format and generic use cases; it does not mention behavioral traits such as timeouts, error handling, rate limits, or what happens on inaccessible URLs. Some behavioral info (redirects, size limit) is in the parameter schema, but the tool description itself lacks it.

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?

Two sentences accomplish the entire description: the first lists the output, the second gives use cases. Every sentence is essential, with no redundant or extraneous information. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, output detail, and usage scenarios adequately for a simple fetch-and-parse tool. However, it omits information about error conditions, return format details, and does not fully compensate for the lack of behavioral annotations.

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 100% for both parameters ('url' and 'link_limit'), and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 verb 'Extracts' and the resource 'structured content from any public URL', listing specific extracted items (title, meta, headings, links, text preview). It distinguishes from similar sibling tools like 'page-links' by emphasizing structured content beyond just links, but does not explicitly contrast with all 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?

The description provides clear use cases: 'research agents following link chains from on-chain data, auditing page structure, or seeding downstream text-generation calls.' However, it does not offer guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools, which are numerous.

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