Fetch Page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses Tor routing, text-vs-raw output, supported methods, and that session_id gives sticky circuits and cookies, but it omits rate limits, timeouts, error behavior, and whether requests are logged or authenticated.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the core action and return value, then append the method and session capabilities. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does explain the return value (text or raw HTML), which is the key thing an agent needs. For a 6-param fetch tool the coverage is solid, though error/timeout behavior would round it out.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the method enum and raw/session behavior but adds little syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource (fetch an HTTP(S)/.onion page through Tor) plus the return format (text or raw HTML). It implicitly separates itself from download_file and page_metadata by emphasizing page text retrieval, but it does not name or contrast any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied by the capability statement; there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance nor any mention of when to prefer extract_links, page_metadata, or download_file instead. An agent can infer the general context but must reason about the boundaries itself.

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