extract_web

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits or side effects other than the read-only fetch.

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 concise and well-structured, with the core functionality, output, and usage guidance each addressed in single sentences. No redundant or vague wording is present.

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 sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use the tool, what it does, what it returns (clean text and HTTP status), and its limitations (no authenticated pages or JavaScript). No critical information is missing.

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 description for the 'url' parameter is comprehensive, covering format and providing an example. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 verb 'fetches and sanitizes' and the resource 'readable text content from any public HTTP or HTTPS web page.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on web content extraction, which is unique among DNS audit, chunk text, eval expression, repair JSON, and validate schema.

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 states when to use ('Use when an agent needs primary webpage content for summarization or analysis') and when not to use ('Do not use for authenticated pages or executing JavaScript'), providing clear usage boundaries.

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