Fieldwright

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

The annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: it fetches one public page, does not render JavaScript, and extracts a defined set of structured and contact data. This helps an agent anticipate dynamic-content limitations and the nature of the result.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core action, followed by output specifics and one use-case sentence. The long metadata enumeration is efficient and informative, though it makes the second sentence somewhat unwieldy. Overall it earns its place without fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the return content, including Markdown, metadata fields, structured data, and contact extraction. It also states access constraints and the no-JavaScript limitation. The only notable gap is the behavior of include_markdown=false, which is left implicit.

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?

The schema already documents url and max_chars well; coverage is 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant per-parameter detail beyond the schema, and the include_markdown parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and the description, though its boolean name is fairly self-explanatory.

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 and resource ('Fetch one public web page') and precisely states the output: compact Markdown plus a detailed metadata set. It names concrete use cases ('read or summarise a page or pull its schema.org data'), so an agent can clearly tell what this tool accomplishes. Even without siblings, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit intended use cases ('Use to read or summarise a page or pull its schema.org data') and a clear limitation ('No JavaScript rendering') that helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but there are no sibling tools and the stated scope is sufficient for selection.

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