Web page to Markdown

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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world traits, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: boilerplate/nav/ads removal, title and metadata returned, and robots.txt compliance. It still omits failure modes (non-200 responses, blocked-by-robots errors, rate limiting) which matter for a network 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?

Two tight sentences: output shape and content filtering come first, then the use case, then the robots.txt constraint. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so adequately by naming Markdown plus title and metadata. The remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior, minor for a read-only fetch 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 100%, so url, max_chars, include_links and include_images are already documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a public web page, return main content as Markdown) plus what is stripped and what extra data comes back (title, metadata). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling html_to_markdown, though 'fetch a public web page' implies network retrieval rather than converting supplied HTML.

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?

Gives a clear use context: read an article or docs page for summarising, quoting or RAG. It does not name alternatives such as html_to_markdown or get_link_preview, so the agent must infer routing when it already holds HTML or only needs a preview.

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