content_scrape

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent. The description adds some behavioral context by specifying what is extracted (content, headings, structure) and that include_metadata controls meta/OpenGraph output, but it does not disclose limitations like JavaScript rendering, rate limits, or return format.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clear Args block. Every sentence provides relevant information; no filler or redundant content.

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 and the presence of several sibling scraping tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks guidance on tool selection, does not explain the return value structure (no output schema exists), and misses the config parameter, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 provides useful explanations for 'url' (full URL with example) and 'include_metadata' (meta tags and OpenGraph data), but completely omits the 'config' parameter, which remains undefined in both the schema and description.

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 defines the action ('Scrape a web page') and the resource, and specifies the extraction outputs ('content, headings, and structure'). This distinguishes it from siblings like js_scrape (JavaScript rendering) and batch_scrape (multiple pages).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as js_scrape, batch_scrape, or site_crawl. It does not mention limitations (e.g., dynamic content) or appropriate scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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