fetch_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that content is untrusted external input and warns against following instructions embedded in the page text. It also transparently explains content extraction behavior (stripping navigation/scripts) and the backend override's capabilities and limitations (curl for TLS impersonation, requires extra).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured: a clear initial sentence, a security note, and a compact Args list. Every sentence provides relevant information, and the length is proportional to the tool's complexity. The inclusion of non-schema parameter 'ctx' is minor and does not detract from overall conciseness.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, security, pagination behavior, and backend selection. Given that an output schema exists, it needn't detail return values, but it does indicate the return is clean readable text. The combination of annotations-free safety disclosure and parameter semantics makes this a complete, self-sufficient description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args' section explains each parameter beyond the schema: url must start with http/https, start_index is a character offset for pagination, max_length is in characters, and backend options are semantically distinguished ('auto' tries httpx then falls back to curl). This adds real meaning to the schema's bare type definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch and extract the main text content from a webpage.' It also details what the tool strips (navigation, headers, footers, scripts, styles) and explicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling by stating 'Use this after searching to read the full content of a specific result.'

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance ('Use this after searching to read the full content of a specific result') and offers actionable advice on parameter tuning (pagination with start_index, max_length) and backend selection (httpx, curl, auto) for bypassing bot filters. It effectively positions the tool relative to the sibling 'search' tool.

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