fetch_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is 'main content as plain text' (not raw HTML) and explains browser backend options, including the default. However, it does not mention potential errors, redirects, or handling of dynamic content, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentences: the first states the core function, the second lists browser options and usage context. Every sentence adds value, is front-loaded, and there is no redundancy.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: purpose, browser selection, and a typical use case. It does not mention the max_chars limit or error behavior, but these are marginal for a straightforward fetch tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'browser' parameter by listing valid values and the default behavior ('Omit to use the default'). However, it does not explain 'max_chars' or provide any semantics for the required 'url' parameter beyond what is obvious from the purpose.

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 explicitly states 'Fetch a web page and return its main content as plain text', using a specific verb and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like web_search (searching) and setup_camoufox (configuration).

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?

It provides a concrete use case: 'Useful for reading the full content of a search result URL.' This implies when to use the tool after obtaining a URL via search. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the implied workflow.

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