scrape

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the claims of being the 'lowest-cost call' and returning 'main content as Markdown,' which provide some insight. However, it omits important behaviors like handling redirects, size limits, or error scenarios. The parameter descriptions complete the picture for the browser parameter, but the tool description itself lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence directly states the action and output; the second adds a cost claim and use case. Every sentence is meaningful and 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 simple tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and output format. It mentions the key extra feature of cost. However, it could be more complete by hinting at limitations or example use cases. Still, it is fairly complete for its complexity level.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema (url and browser). It repeats the general idea of fetching a URL but provides no new semantic detail.

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 specifies the action ('Fetch a URL'), the resource ('return its main content'), and the output format ('LLM-ready Markdown'). It also distinguishes this tool as the 'lowest-cost call,' which differentiates it from sibling tools like crawl or extract.

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 implies usage for simple page reading ('useful for reading a page into context'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., crawl for multiple pages, extract for structured data). No when-not-to-use information is given.

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