Get Page Content

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the joined-with-blank-lines format, the always-reports-'matched' guarantee, and the nested-match duplication quirk, all beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence delivers the core capability, and each following sentence adds distinct, useful behavioral or selection guidance.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with 100% parameter documentation and safety annotations, the description covers output format, truncation indirectly, sibling-relevant selector behavior, and the partial-result guarantee. A brief note on when to prefer a sibling tool would make it fully 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 100%, so the input schema fully documents tab_id, selector, max_chars, and first_only. The description reinforces selector semantics but does not meaningfully add beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the visible text of a page, or of every element matching a selector joined with blank lines.' This clearly conveys what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_html or query_elements.

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?

Offers operational guidance such as preferring a leaf-ish selector to avoid nested repetition and noting that a partial answer is never silent. However, it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_html, get_links, or query_elements, leaving routing to inference.

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