scrape_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the scraper auto-detects content and strips nav/footer noise, but it does not state whether it operates on the current page, whether it is read-only, or what the returned structure contains beyond content, links, and metadata.

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?

One line, front-loaded, with no redundant sentences. The word 'smart' is slightly vague, but the rest is efficient and scannable.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling list, the description leaves important gaps: it never says the scraper targets the current page versus navigating, does not describe return shape/format, and does not distinguish itself from alternatives. It is too thin to fully support tool selection.

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?

The description's mention of main content, links, and metadata weakly maps to only_main_content/include_links/include_meta, and schema already describes max_text_length and only_main_content. It adds little detail for the two undocumented boolean parameters, but their names are largely self-explanatory.

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 names a concrete verb (scrape) and resource (page), and adds extract behaviors: main content, links, metadata, plus noise stripping. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling scraping tools like scrape_markdown or smart_fetch.

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 implies use when a clean extracted main-content version of a page is needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives among the many scraping/extraction siblings. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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