web.render

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important traits: it is expensive, and it returns markdown plus a title. It is silent on authentication, rate limits, and what timeoutMs does when exceeded, which matters for a costly browser render.

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?

A single compact sentence pair: what it does, what it returns, and the cost warning, all front-loaded with zero filler.

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 return shape is covered in lieu of an output schema and the cost caveat is present. However, for a two-parameter tool where both parameters are undocumented and there are no annotations, the definition leaves real gaps for an agent to guess at.

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 and does not: neither 'url' nor 'timeoutMs' is explained. An agent gets no hint about URL format or what a timeout value means or defaults to.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (render a single page via a V8 browser) and scopes it to JS/SPA content that only appears after interaction. That distinguishes it from lighter siblings such as web.search, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Drogie — używaj świadomie' warns about cost and implies the tool should be a deliberate choice, which is useful guidance. But it gives no concrete when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule and does not point to a cheaper sibling (e.g. search or brief) for simpler fetches.

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