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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the HTML can be for the whole page or a specific element, but it does not explain the behavior of the 'outer' parameter (outerHTML vs innerHTML) or how null selector is handled. No contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential purpose in 11 words, making it highly concise.

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 the simple nature of the tool and the annotations covering safety, the description adequately communicates the core function. However, it lacks parameter semantics (especially 'outer') and does not explicitly describe the return format or error behavior. This makes it minimal but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly references the selector via 'or a specific element', but it completely omits the 'outer' parameter, leaving its meaning and default behavior unexplained. With two parameters and zero schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('the HTML of the page or a specific element'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_text (returns text) and get_links (returns links).

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 usage guidance is provided. It does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_text, nor does it specify conditions for using a selector vs the whole page. Usage is only implied by the name and basic description.

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