fetch_web_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: it warns the page is untrusted and may contain agent-directed instructions, forbids running suggested commands, explains config-dependent host readability (default allowlist vs research mode), prescribes refusal etiquette (report once, never retry a different URL on the same host), discloses short-lived caching, and pins protocol constraints (HTTPS-only, port 443, no credentials, private addresses). There are no annotations to contradict.

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?

Long, but every paragraph earns its place: core purpose, usage context, security warning, host configuration (cleanly bulleted), refusal handling, and protocol constraints. Dense without redundancy and front-loaded with the purpose.

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?

For a security- and configuration-sensitive network tool with an output schema and zero annotations, the description fully covers purpose, triggers, safety behavior, host policy, failure handling, and constraints. Return formats are already documented by the output schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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 does add real meaning: URL constraints (HTTPS-only, port 443, no-credentials, private-address rules) and the paging/caching behavior via the read_file convention. It stops short of spelling out how max_lines and start_line interact or what the defaults imply, relying on cross-reference to read_file.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read a web page as plain text.' The 'plain text' qualifier meaningfully distinguishes it from the closest sibling fetch_https_response (raw HTTP fetch) and from read_file (local files), and 'Use this after web_search' positions its role clearly.

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?

'Use this after web_search to read a result' gives explicit when-to-use context, and the paging-convention note ties it to a known workflow. However, it never states when not to use it — e.g., when fetch_https_response would be appropriate instead — so no exclusion or alternative-selection guidance is given.

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