web_scrape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'clean' extraction, but fails to disclose how it handles JavaScript, the effect of use_browser, rate limits, or what happens with failed fetches. The term 'clean' is too vague to be informative.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose effectively. However, it is almost too sparse, sacrificing necessary detail, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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 tool has six parameters and no annotations, and the schema provides no descriptions. The description covers only the basic purpose and output formats, entirely omitting parameter guidance, use cases, or behavior. It is grossly insufficient for an agent to select and use this tool correctly in diverse contexts.

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. It relates to output_format via 'Markdown, text, JSON, or HTML', but it does not explain any other parameters (url, max_chars, use_browser, include_links, include_images). The lack of parameter descriptions forces the agent to rely on parameter names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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', and specifies the output types ('Markdown, text, JSON, or HTML'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_search (search) and playwright_cli_* (browser automation). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as playwright_cli_goto or web_search. There is no mention of scenarios like static vs. dynamic content, or when to set use_browser=true. Usage context is entirely absent.

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