Read a web page for a goal

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return shape (compact answer plus findings), the grounding guarantee (verbatim quotes checked against the page), and the size cap. It doesn't cover failure modes such as unreachable pages or paywalls.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of explaining what comes back (answer, findings, verified quotes, token cap). Parameters and safety are handled by schema and annotations. Only the absence of error/edge-case behavior keeps it from a 5.

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%, including a security warning on 'goal' and the enum meanings for 'format', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the max_tokens ceiling already documented in the schema, adding no new syntax or constraint detail. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one known web page') plus the scoping constraint 'for a stated goal', which implicitly separates it from discovery-style siblings like web_lookup and web_research. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation requires a small inference.

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 qualifier 'one known web page' hints that this is for a single, already-identified URL rather than open-ended search or multi-page investigation. However, no alternative tool is named and there are no stated exclusions, so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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