scrape_websites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that content is stored, which implies persistence, but doesn't specify where or how. It also mentions the API key fallback to environment variables, which is useful context. However, it lacks critical behavioral details like rate limits, error handling, authentication requirements beyond the API key, or what happens if scraping fails for some websites.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists parameters with helpful explanations, and ends with return information. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 (3 parameters, nested objects, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description does a good job. It explains parameters thoroughly and states the return type. However, for a tool that performs web scraping and storage operations, more behavioral context (like error handling or storage details) would make it more 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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'websites' is a dictionary mapping provider names to URLs, clarifies that 'formats' accepts specific values with a default, and describes the 'api_key' parameter's behavior with environment variable fallback. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't fully document all parameter nuances.

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's purpose: 'Scrape multiple websites using Firecrawl and store their content.' This includes a specific verb ('scrape'), resource ('websites'), and technology ('Firecrawl'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'extract_scraped_info'.

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. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'extract_scraped_info' or any other context about appropriate use cases. The only implied usage is for scraping websites with Firecrawl, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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