summarize_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action without explaining how URLs are processed, what the summary output looks like, or any side effects or limitations beyond the schema's mention of up to 20 URLs.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: 'Summarize content from one or more URLs.' It is appropriately brief, though the brevity does limit the contextual value it provides.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: it does not describe the output format, usage distinctions from extract_web/compare_web, or behavioral caveats. The schema compensates for URL limits and prompt structure.

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% coverage for the single prompt parameter, describing it as a natural language prompt containing URLs and summarization instructions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond this, so 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 clearly states the core action—summarize—and the resource—content from URLs. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like extract_web and compare_web, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description simply says what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and schema.

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