web_fetch_authenticated

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic function of fetching with cookies/headers. It lacks details on authentication behavior, session handling, error responses, or return format, which are critical for correct usage.

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 a single concise sentence that prioritizes the key differentiator (auth/custom headers). However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to include usage guidance or parameter hints.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify return values, error handling, authentication nuances, or interaction with cookies/headers over time, leaving an agent without sufficient context for reliable use.

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 only 40% (cookies and headers have descriptions). The description adds no additional meaning for the parameters; it doesn't explain url, lang, timeout, or clarify how cookies/headers are used beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'a page that needs cookies or custom headers (logged-in or gated pages)', which distinguishes it from siblings like web_fetch_json or web_read that handle public pages.

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 specifies when to use this tool (pages needing cookies or custom headers, logged-in/gated pages), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for public pages.

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