Open Web Page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses several useful traits: public-only access, rejection of private/local addresses, safe-follow redirect mode, and a response byte cap. It could also mention error behavior or timeout handling, but the provided constraints are substantial.

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 tight sentences front-load the purpose, then add usage context and behavioral constraints. No filler, 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?

The tool is simple and the description covers URL type, output format, redirect behavior, and a cap. The main gap is max_chars semantics, which matters because there is no schema-level documentation and no annotations.

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 adds that URL must be public HTTP(S), but it never explains the max_chars parameter or how the response cap relates to it. An agent cannot confidently tune max_chars based on this text.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('public HTTP(S) page'), and output ('cleaned readable text'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search and search_images: it retrieves page content rather than result snippets or images.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after search when result snippets are insufficient,' giving a clear trigger condition and relationship to the primary sibling. It also states a when-not: private/local addresses are rejected.

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