stealth_fetch

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

With no annotations provided, the description assumes full responsibility. It mentions evasion and return format but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., proxy rotation, session persistence) or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. While a fetch is inherently non-destructive, the description lacks explicit details about side effects or failure modes.

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 succinct, using only two sentences to convey the core functionality and output format. It avoids unnecessary verbosity and presents information in a clear, direct manner.

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 description provides essential info (purpose, output) but omits details such as error handling, rate limits, or when to use the tool in conjunction with siblings. The presence of an output schema is noted, but its contents are not described. Overall, it covers the basics but misses edge-case guidance, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 provides no descriptions for parameters, and the tool description merely lists them without explaining their meaning or expected values. For instance, 'bypass_challenge' is not defined, and 'session_id' is unclear. With 0% schema coverage and no explanatory text, the agent has no guidance on how to appropriately set or use these parameters.

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's purpose: fetching any webpage with automated anti-bot evasion and returning Markdown. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'webpage' are explicit, and the scope is well-defined without ambiguity.

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 pages that may require anti-bot or Cloudflare evasion, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like stealth_search or proxy_status. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, leaving some room for interpretation.

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