Fetch a web page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the key transformation: HTML is stripped and readable text is returned. However, it does not cover edge cases like redirects, timeouts, or handling of non-HTML content, preventing a higher score.

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 extremely efficient: two sentences accomplish purpose, output, and usage context. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by direct use-case guidance, with zero filler.

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 fetch tool, the description covers the core purpose and output, but the unexplained maxChars parameter and lack of any error/edge-case behavior leave a noticeable gap. With no output schema or annotations, the description should have done more to explain the tool's full behavior and parameter semantics.

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 only 50% (url has a description, maxChars does not). The tool description adds no meaning for maxChars—such as what it limits or how it behaves—so the agent cannot infer its purpose or range trade-offs. The description is entirely silent on parameters, failing to complement the schema gaps.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource (URL) and defines the output as 'readable text content (HTML stripped)', which fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_search. It also names concrete use cases, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('reading documentation pages, API references or content the user linked'), providing clear context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the use-case framing is sufficient guidance for an agent.

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