Read one web page

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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, the description still adds substantial behavioral context: robots.txt checking, bot-check stopping, no auth/cookies, a named User-Agent, per-host pacing, and 429/503 backoff. This is unusually rich disclosure for a fetch tool.

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 are front-loaded with the use case, then safely ordered into read-only behavior, network behavior, and return shape. Each sentence carries distinct and useful information with no filler.

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?

Annotations already cover safety and openness, and the description fills remaining gaps around robots.txt, auth, pacing, backoff, and return content. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains that a JSON page and fetch receipt are returned.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single url parameter, and the description adds only the scope phrase 'one public URL' rather than format or validation details beyond the schema. With the schema doing the heavy lifting, the baseline is appropriate.

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: reading one public URL and returning its text, feed items, sitemap URLs, or JSON. It clearly scopes the tool to a single URL, though it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from the related sibling telos.crawl.site.

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?

It begins with an explicit 'Use when' condition covering the content types an agent may need from one URL. It does not state when not to use it or point to an alternative sibling for site-level crawling.

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