text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description is consistent with them. It adds useful behavioral detail by explaining that it can operate on the whole page or a specific target and enumerates supported target specifiers, which helps the agent understand scope.

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 that conveys the core operation, the two main usage scopes, and the target syntax variants. There is no tax and no filler; every element 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?

For a simple read-only getter with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential user-visible behavior. The schema documents session and lease, and the description covers target. It is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and already documents each parameter. The description largely repeats the target parameter's format with slightly more examples ('@text:Foo', '@label:Email', 'etc.'), but adds no fundamentally new semantics for session or lease.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get inner text') and explicitly lists accepted target formats. This distinguishes it from siblings like html or title, and the 'whole page' alternative adds scope. An agent can tell the purpose immediately.

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 states what the tool does and how targets are specified but gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as 'content' or 'extract'. There are no exclusions or explicit routing to siblings, leaving the choice to inference.

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