fetch_txt

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key processing behavior: HTML tags, scripts, and styles are stripped, and output is limited by max_length and start_index. It does not mention error handling, redirects, or authentication, but for a simple fetch-and-clean tool these omissions are acceptable.

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 a compact docstring with a clear one-line purpose, structured Args, and a Returns section. Every sentence earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers the core behavior, all parameters, and the return type. Minor gaps are the lack of notes on error behavior, character encoding, or whether redirects are followed, but these are not critical for basic use.

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 provides zero parameter descriptions, so the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: url, headers, max_length, and start_index, including default behavior. This gives an agent the semantic meaning needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a website') and clearly distinguishes the output format ('plain text (no HTML)') from sibling tools like fetch_html, fetch_json, and fetch_markdown. The phrase 'with HTML tags, scripts, and styles removed' makes the tool's purpose immediately 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 the appropriate use case: when you need raw text content of a webpage rather than HTML, JSON, or Markdown. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions, but the output-format framing gives an agent enough context to select this tool over its siblings.

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