web_fetch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully reveals the HTML-to-text transformation behavior, but omits operational details such as error handling (404s, timeouts), rate limits, content size restrictions, or idempotency characteristics that would aid agent decision-making.

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?

Perfectly concise at 12 words in a single sentence. It front-loads the action ('Fetch') and immediately clarifies the return format, with no redundant or wasted phrases.

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 single-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers the core behavior. However, it lacks completeness regarding failure modes (unreachable URLs, non-HTML content) and size constraints that would be necessary for robust agent operation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage for the single 'url' parameter, the baseline score is 3. The description does not add semantic constraints beyond the schema (e.g., 'publicly accessible', 'HTTP/HTTPS only', 'must return HTML'), so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 specific verb 'Fetch' with resource 'URL' and clarifies the output transformation ('HTML stripped to readable text'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like web_extract_links (links only) and web_dns_lookup (DNS records) by emphasizing full content retrieval, though it could explicitly name these distinctions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the presence of web_extract_links as a sibling, explicit guidance distinguishing 'full text content' vs 'hyperlink extraction' would be necessary for a higher score.

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