web_scrape

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility. It discloses the fetching behavior, output formats, render escalation, and content stripping. It also notes public pages only and term compliance. This is good transparency, though it could mention rate limits or error handling.

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. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides details about formats, render behavior, and content stripping. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (general scraper with nested parameters) and absence of output schema, the description covers format options, render behavior, and constraints. Minor gaps include lack of default values, error handling, and timeout info, but overall it's quite 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?

The input schema has a single object parameter 'scrapeOption' with 100% coverage but minimal description. The description adds meaningful context by listing format options (markdown, html, etc.) and explaining special options like render and only_main_content. This adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 scrapes a URL into various formats (markdown, HTML, links, metadata). It uses a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling domain-specific scrapers, the name and general nature imply it's for any public URL, which is clear enough.

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 explains when to use (for a single public URL) and mentions respecting terms and robots.txt. However, it does not provide explicit alternatives or when not to use (e.g., for private pages or when domain-specific tools are better). This leaves the agent with moderate guidance.

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