html

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description does not contradict these and adds minimal behavior detail beyond noting target selection options. It does not describe output format or any potential side effects, but for a read-only tool that is acceptable given 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core functionality and gives target examples compactly. Perfectly concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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 read-only tool with three optional parameters and a full parameter schema, the description covers what is needed. It implies the return value (HTML) and provides target syntax guidance. It does not mention output encoding or pagination, but such details are likely irrelevant for a one-shot HTML fetch, and the tool is simple enough that this is not a significant gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds concrete examples ('@text:Foo', '@label:Email') that slightly illustrate the target syntax, but largely repeats the schema's target description. Since the baseline for full schema coverage is 3, this is appropriate; it does not significantly compensate for anything missing.

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 retrieves HTML, either the whole page or a targeted element via @eN, @text:Foo, @label:Email, or CSS selectors. It is specific about what it returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'text' or 'extract', though the examples imply HTML output.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling content-retrieval tools (text, extract, extract_fields), the description does not mention exclusions or direct users to pick it specifically for HTML needs. Usage context is only implied by the verb 'Get HTML'.

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