Fetch Web

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing automatic noise removal, returning title + plain text, and the max_chars truncation behavior. It does not cover failure modes or rate limits, but for a simple fetch tool the core behavior is transparent.

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 tightly structured with an action line, parameter list, and return section. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important behavioral detail (noise removal) is front-loaded. No filler or redundant explanation.

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 2-parameter fetch tool with no annotations, the description covers input semantics, output shape, and preprocessing behavior. It could be slightly more complete by referencing alternatives or error behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 50%: max_chars has a full description with range and default, but url is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by defining url as a webpage address and providing an example, while restating max_chars meaning. This adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action: fetch a single webpage and extract clean body plain text, removing navigation/script/style noise. This distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_web_md (markdown output), fetch_urls (multiple URLs), search_web (search), and fetch_rss (RSS feed).

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 implies usage: when you need a webpage's readable body text for LLM consumption. However, it never explicitly compares against alternatives or states when not to use this tool, even though sibling tools are listed and the distinction would be valuable.

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