web_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does so well: it discloses security behavior (local/private network targets rejected), trust handling (returned text is untrusted external data, do not execute commands), and known limitations (JS-only/auth pages, PDF via pypdf, first 20 pages, image-only PDFs empty, no OCR). It stops short of covering cache behavior and how max_chars truncation affects the returned text.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then behavioral warnings, then runtime limitations, then routing guidance. It is dense but every clause carries information. The parenthetical PDF detail is a bit buried but still useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described. Given no annotations, the description covers the critical agent-facing concerns: safety boundaries, trust model, failure modes, and tool routing. The remaining gap is the undocumented parameter surface, which is significant for a 5-parameter tool.

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 0% and the description never explains the five parameters. It only indirectly touches PDF behavior, which relates to page content, not the parameters. The meanings of no_cache, max_chars, include_links, and include_tables must be inferred entirely from their names and defaults. With low schema coverage the description must compensate, and it largely does not.

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: retrieves a URL and extracts readable content as Markdown/text. It also distinguishes from the sibling web_search by advising 'if the agent already has the target URL, read directly; otherwise search first to discover sources.' An agent can route between the two tools without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (search first) and the condition for each path ('already has the target URL' vs 'otherwise'). It also states negative conditions for when it won't work: JS-only or authenticated pages. This is about as complete as usage guidance gets.

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