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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the general workflow (searching the web, reading top sources, producing a cited report) but does not mention read-only behavior, potential latency, rate limits, or any limitations. The description is truthful and somewhat informative, but leaves important operational behavior unaddressed.

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 sentence with a clear chronological structure, no filler, and immediate front-loading of the core action ('Search the web'). Every phrase earns its place: 'read the top sources' and 'cited synthesis report' are distinct and necessary components. This is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 two fully documented parameters and the presence of an output schema (likely covering the report structure), the description covers the essential process and outcome well. What is missing is more explicit context about when to use the tool versus siblings and a few behavioral notes, but the combination of description and schema is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke 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%: both 'query' and 'max_sources' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description's phrasing ('research question', 'top results') mirrors the schema descriptions without adding new meaning about formats, constraints, or interpretation. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed what structured data already provides.

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 sequence ('Search', 'read', 'return') with a clear deliverable ('a cited synthesis report'). It unambiguously identifies the tool's function and naturally distinguishes deep_research from siblings like search (just web results) or scrape/extract (page-level content gathering). The multi-step process is explicit and not a tautology.

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 implies usage for comprehensive research with cited synthesis, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over search, scrape, or extract, nor does it give any 'instead of' guidance. Context makes the intended use reasonably clear, yet there are no exclusions or alternative routing as seen in higher-quality definitions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the two operating modes (structured JSON versus text answer), which is meaningful. However, it does not mention rendering defaults, page-fetch behavior, rate limits, or side effects. The render parameter is defined in the schema, so some of that context is available, but the description itself stays minimal.

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 could be slightly better structured by explicitly separating the two modes, but as written it is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The output schema exists, so return-value details are covered elsewhere, and the input schema is fully documented. The main gaps are the lack of choice guidance between prompt and json_schema, and no indication of when to use extract instead of scrape. These gaps make the description adequate but not 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines url, prompt, render, and json_schema. The description adds a high-level mapping by linking json_schema to structured JSON and implying the text answer comes from the prompt, but it does not add much beyond the schema.

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 ('extract'), the target resource ('a page'), and the two possible outputs: JSON matching json_schema or a text answer. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like scrape or search, though the verb and output specification make the core purpose clear.

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 gives no guidance on when to use extract versus scrape, search, or deep_research, and no exclusions or conditions. The only context is 'from a page,' which is too thin to help an agent choose between this and its siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the two-phase fetch strategy, the automatic fallback to headless browsing, and the output transformation to clean markdown. It does not discuss rate limits, authentication, or failure behavior, but the core operational traits are transparent.

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 with no fluff, front-loading the primary purpose before the fallback behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values do not need to be explained in the description. Combined with fully documented parameters and a clear explanation of the scraping strategy, the definition is largely complete, though it omits failure semantics and any rate-limit or authentication caveats.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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 states a specific verb ('Scrape a single URL') and a concrete outcome ('into clean markdown'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The boilerplate/ads-stripping detail further distinguishes it from general fetch or research 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?

It explains that a fast static fetch is attempted first and that a stealth headless browser is used automatically for JS-gated pages, giving clear context on when the tool adapts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer sibling tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden. It does communicate the read-only nature implicitly by saying 'Returns', but it doesn't disclose rate limits, result freshness, error behavior, or whether any resources are modified. This is additional but minimal context.

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?

One short sentence front-loads the primary action and return format. No filler words; the description is appropriately sized and every word contributes.

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 two-parameter tool with a complete input schema and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies what the tool returns and the parameters are well covered by the schema. It lacks any mention of when to use it relative to deep_research, but that falls under usage guidance rather than completeness.

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%, with descriptions for both query and max_results. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Web search') and specifies the return shape (ranked results with title, url, content snippet). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scrape, extract, and deep_research without needing to open their schemas.

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 no guidance on when to choose search over its siblings, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The presence of deep_research, scrape, and extract in the same toolset makes this omission a real gap.

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