scrape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it reveals multi-attempt behavior (fast first, escalate to stealth), per-attempt timeout semantics, stealth-only constraints for js and wait_for, and where js results appear (meta.js_result). It also flags include_html as large and off by default, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact, well-labeled Args list. Every sentence adds operational value; the longer js and wait_for explanations earn their length by specifying exactly when and how to use those parameters.

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 6-parameter scraping tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description covers tool purpose, all parameters, mode behavior, and parameter-specific use cases. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing; the output schema can handle return-value details.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description documents all six parameters with substantive meaning beyond names and types: URL schemes, the four prefer values and their trade-offs, timeout per attempt, include_html's response-size impact, and the precise use cases for js and wait_for. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 opening line, 'Scrape a single URL → LLM-ready markdown,' states the exact verb, resource, and output format. The 'single URL' qualifier and mention of markdown differentiate it from siblings like batch_scrape and crawl, even without naming them.

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 makes the intended context clear by emphasizing a single URL and explains when to choose each prefer strategy (auto escalates to stealth on block/short page, fast is HTTP-only, stealth handles Cloudflare, llm applies BM25 fit-markdown). It also gives explicit guidance for js (when data lives in DOM properties) and wait_for (async content after network_idle). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions versus sibling tools, so it is not a 5.

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