Read a web page as Markdown

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

Annotations cover only readOnly and openWorld, so the description carries real weight here: it discloses content cleaning, robots.txt compliance, SSRF-style address blocking, local execution, and the maxChars default/ceiling. These are behavioral facts an agent could not infer from the annotations or schema.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence with zero filler; the core action and return format come first, with constraints and limits trailing. Every clause (cleaning, robots.txt, address blocking, char limit) contributes distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately describes the return payload (Markdown plus title/description) and the size cap. It stops short of covering failure modes — non-HTML content, unreachable hosts, or whether truncated output is flagged — which an agent would want before relying on it.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are fully documented there. The description restates the maxChars default and maximum verbatim and adds no new semantics (e.g. truncation behavior) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fetch a public web page') and precisely characterizes the output ('main content as clean Markdown (no navigation, scripts or ads), with title and description'). No siblings exist, so no differentiation is needed; the purpose 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?

Gives the operative usage boundary: only public pages, robots.txt respected, private/internal addresses refused. With no sibling tools there are no alternatives to route to, so the guidance is complete in context, though it does not address what to do when a fetch is refused.

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