web_extract

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it removes scripts/navigation/boilerplate, returns plain text, and truncates to max_chars. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job of setting expectations about output format and limits. It doesn't mention potential failures (e.g., paywalls, JS-heavy pages) but covers the main behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The core action and output format are front-loaded, and the usage context and truncation behavior are stated efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. It could mention error cases or content-type limitations, but for a straightforward fetch-and-extract tool, it is largely 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the purpose of max_chars (truncation) and implies url is the target page, but it doesn't add detail about URL format, required scheme, or how max_chars interacts with the output beyond truncation. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 function: fetching a web page and returning main content as clean plain text. It explicitly mentions what is removed (scripts, navigation, boilerplate), which distinguishes it from the sibling search tools. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'web page' are specific and 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 explicitly says to use this tool after web_search / web_search_news to read a result in full, which provides clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context and the 'after search' guidance make the intended workflow clear.

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