fetch_markdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core HTML-to-Markdown conversion behavior and gives useful operational detail through max_length and start_index, implying truncation/pagination. However, it does not disclose error handling, redirects, JavaScript rendering, rate limits, or behavior on fetch failure.

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 compact and well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Each parameter is on one line with a concise explanation, and there is no filler or unnecessary repetition of schema details.

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?

For a simple four-parameter fetch tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it covers all parameters and the return type. It loses a point because, given four similar siblings, a short routing note on when Markdown is preferred over HTML/JSON/TXT would make it fully self-contained.

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%, but the Args block explains all four parameters clearly: URL to fetch, optional headers, maximum character count, and start index. This adequately compensates for the bare schema and clarifies the meaning of each parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a website'), and the phrase 'return the content as Markdown' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like fetch_html, fetch_json, and fetch_txt by output format. The tool's job is 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 implies use when Markdown output is desired, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over fetch_html, fetch_json, or fetch_txt, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Sibling tools must be disambiguated mainly by name and inferred format.

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