Fetch page HTML

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool bypasses anti-bot protection, uses a real browser to render, and returns raw HTML as text. This reveals key behavioral traits, though it omits details like rate limits or potential latency.

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 three concise sentences: the core action, when to use it, and the return format. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, use cases, and return value. It doesn't explain all parameters in the description, but the schema covers them fully. It could be more complete by contrasting with fetch_parsed, but overall it is sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add specific parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, but the mention of 'fully rendered' hints at the purpose of wait parameters. It provides no extra value for the params, hence a 3.

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 states the tool fetches the fully rendered HTML of any web page through ScrapeUnblocker, bypassing anti-bot protections. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_parsed (likely structured extraction) and google_search, and from a normal 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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when a normal fetch is blocked (403/429, captcha, access denied) or when the page needs a real browser to render.' This gives clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like fetch_parsed.

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