Scrape URL

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: default credit cost, response_detail default, e-commerce auto-routing, and a compliance responsibility warning. It doesn't describe error behavior or exact output structure, but the added context is meaningful.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying actionable information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and has no filler, making it easy to scan and process.

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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description doesn't spell out the exact response envelope, but the detailed parameter schema and the response_detail parameter description fill most of that gap. It's sufficiently complete for a competent agent to use correctly.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description enriches key ones by explaining the default static article path, response_detail=compact as default, and when to use strategy=auto. This goes beyond the schema entries.

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 action: 'Scrape a single URL into markdown, HTML, or text.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like metalift_batch_scrape, metalift_crawl, and metalift_sitemap by emphasizing the single-URL scope.

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?

It provides clear context on when to use the default static path, e-commerce routing, and strategy=auto for WAF/SPA pages. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer siblings like batch_scrape or crawl over this tool.

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