Search or fetch web content with remio

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safe read-only behavior. The description adds a valuable behavioral trait: fetching never creates a remio note, which clarifies side effects beyond what the annotation provides. It does not mention other behaviors like rate limits or response format, but the added note is meaningful.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant wording. It efficiently states the tool's function and a key behavioral note, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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?

With 7 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It omits parameter semantics, return-value expectations, and any discussion of when to prefer alternatives. The agent would need to guess crucial details like what 'freshness' values mean or what the response contains.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely references 'search' and 'extraction' (which map to the action parameter), but fails to explain query, url, count, media, region, or freshness. The agent is left to infer from parameter names, making this inadequate.

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 it performs 'web search or clean web-page extraction', explicitly targeting web content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remio_search_notes (which searches notes) and remio_read, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context that this is for web content, and the note 'Fetching never creates a remio note' gives a specific behavioral guideline. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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