Read a public web source

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: it returns a bounded excerpt, blocks private addresses, and provides retrieval time and fingerprint. This adds value beyond annotations without contradiction.

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, no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides essential information: what the tool does, what it returns, and a key constraint (no private addresses).

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 covers the tool's core behavior, return values, and a significant constraint. It does not explain pagination via offset or the maxChars limit in detail, but those are covered in the schema. For a read tool with no output schema, it is sufficiently 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 67% (offset and maxChars have descriptions; url has format uri). The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, but the overall context of reading HTTP(S) as text is clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate for moderate 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 tool reads a public HTTP(S) page as text and returns specific metadata (URL, retrieval time, SHA-256 fingerprint, excerpt). The name and description together distinguish it from sibling tools like read_github_source or read_local_source.

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 public web pages and notes that private network addresses are blocked, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_github_source or read_local_source. There are no when-not-to-use instructions.

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