fetch_page

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

Discloses caching behavior (one-day cache) and that article_only uses Trafilatura with fallback to entire body. With no annotations provided, these details partially cover behavioral traits, though side effects like errors or rate limits are not mentioned.

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?

Two concise sentences convey key information without redundancy. The structure is clear, including a brief parameter explanation, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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?

While the output schema exists (so return format need not be described), the description provides useful operational context like caching and extraction behavior. It omits error handling or edge cases, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple 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 description explains the article_only parameter (true yields article text via Trafilatura, fallback to body), but does not clarify url or max_chars. Schema coverage is low, so the added meaning for one parameter adds some value but leaves others unexplained.

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: extracting page text without HTML junk, targeting articles/docs/README. It also notes caching and the optional article_only mode, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling browser tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_navigate or web_search. The description implies it is for getting clean text content but does not contrast with sibling tools or specify scenarios.

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