Read a web page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results are brief and attributed to a source, which is useful output context, but it says nothing about fetch failures, paywalled/JS-rendered pages, or truncation behavior beyond max_tokens.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action plus output shape come first. The phrasing is slightly informal ('say briefly what it says') but nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value information — and it does, promising a short summary with the source. Combined with full schema coverage of all three parameters and rich annotations, this is close to sufficient; only guidance on failure modes and sibling choice is missing.

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 every parameter is already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the optional-question semantic ('get only that part') but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 web page') and even describes the shape of the output ('say briefly what it says, with the source'). The word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the multi-page siblings (web_research, web_investigate), but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Give a question to get only that part; omit for a summary' implies the two usage modes (targeted extraction vs. full summary), which is genuine guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over web_lookup, web_page, web_research, or web_investigate, leaving the agent to guess.

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