read_url

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

The description discloses that fetched content is untrusted evidence and that a browser session may be used. However, it does not mention potential side effects like caching or saving (parameters bypass_cache, save, save_to exist). Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with possible writes, but the description omits this nuance.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core action and return values. It is well-structured for quick understanding, though it could be more comprehensive.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, 4 return fields, multiple strategies), the description is insufficient. It does not explain many optional parameters or their impact, leaving the agent to infer behavior from parameter names alone.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description only adds context for auth_strategy ('When allowed by auth_strategy...'). Other 15 parameters remain unexplained, including critical ones like return_format, fetch_strategy, and cache behavior.

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 tool reads a URL, removes UI noise, and returns clean_text, evidence, quality, and trace. It specifies the key verb 'Read' and resource 'URL'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_url_for_ai' or 'inspect_url', which are similar in function.

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 mentions using a local user-authorized browser session when allowed by auth_strategy, giving some context for authentication. But it provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it.

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