extract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that pages may come back empty without rendering ('would otherwise come back empty'), and explains that render executes JavaScript first. It also notes the output is 'token-efficient Markdown' which implies content cleaning. It does not detail authentication failures, rate limits, or error behavior, but the key behavioral trait is covered.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and wastes no words. It includes a clear statement of output format, a crucial usage hint, and a target use case. 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description gives a solid overview of inputs (via schema) and outputs (Markdown with listed components). It mentions the render edge case that could affect expected results. It does not explain truncation behavior, but that is covered in the schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it restates the render behavior but does not clarify other parameters like max_chars or include_links beyond what the schema already says. Thus the description does not need to compensate, and the baseline 3 applies.

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's function: 'Fetch any public web page and return its main content as clean, token-efficient Markdown'. It uses specific verbs ('Fetch', 'return') and a resource ('web page'), and explicitly lists what the output includes (title, description, headings, links, lists). This eliminates ambiguity and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'extract_entities'.

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 usage context: 'Built for RAG and for agents that need to read the contents of a URL.' It also gives specific guidance on when to set 'render:true' for JavaScript-heavy pages. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, so it stops short of a full 'when not' clause.

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