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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing the API key requirement and the nature of the tool (extraction of web content). It does not contradict annotations, and the description's claim of 'Extract' aligns with the readOnlyHint.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence serves a purpose: first sentence states what the tool does, second adds use case and prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers input types (URL/HTML), required API key, and a typical use case. It lacks mention of the optional parameters (delay, waitUntil) but those are documented in the schema. For a read-only extraction tool, the description is fairly complete.

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 describes all parameters. The description reiterates the two main inputs ('public URL or raw HTML') but adds no extra syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. A score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 extracts a clean Markdown version of a public URL or raw HTML, using article extraction and HTML-to-Markdown conversion. The mention of 'SnapForge URL to Markdown' in the title and the explicit verb 'Extract' with resource 'Markdown version' strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapforge_pdf and snapforge_screenshot.

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 a specific use case ('Great for feeding live web content to an LLM') and a prerequisite ('Requires a SnapForge API key'), and directs users to snapforge_signup if no key. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond purpose, the context of Markdown extraction is implied as the unique use case.

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