Fetch page HTML

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions bypassing anti-bot protection and using a real browser, but does not discuss rate limits, error handling, or potential side effects. It provides adequate but not comprehensive transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and key differentiator (anti-bot bypass). Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no wasted text.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core use case but does not explain optional parameters like wait_method or proxy_country. Some guidance on these would improve completeness, but the schema handles their basic semantics.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details. Since the schema already describes all parameters, no additional semantic value is needed.

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 fetches the fully rendered HTML of any web page while bypassing anti-bot protection. It specifies the verb 'fetch', the resource 'HTML of web page', and distinguishes from siblings like fetch_parsed and google_search by noting the rendering and bypass capabilities.

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 says when to use: when a normal fetch is blocked (403/429, captcha, 'access denied') or when the page needs a real browser to render. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough to guide the agent.

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