Extract a web page or PDF

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description enriches beyond that by explaining what the output contains (provenance, error handling) and how to interpret fields like method, pipeline_steps, upstream_status, and final_url. It also discloses the rejection of private-network URLs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 four sentences, each with a distinct purpose: primary action, usage context, caution about error handling, and a note on provenance. No fluff; front-loaded with the core function.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and annotations cover read-only/open-world aspects, the description covers the essential operational details: single-URL fetching, return format (markdown + provenance), error handling, and URL restrictions. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both url and char_limit having descriptions. The description adds a small additional nuance by mentioning JavaScript-rendered pages, which is not in the schema's url description, but mostly reiterates the schema. Since the schema is strong, this earns a 4 rather than 3.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource statement: 'Fetch one public URL and return clean readable markdown plus extraction provenance.' It further specifies the intended inputs (known article, documentation page, JavaScript-rendered page, or PDF) and implicitly differentiates from sibling tools (search, map, research, status) by focusing on a single URL extraction.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use for a known article, documentation page, JavaScript-rendered page, or PDF.' Also provides actionable guidance like 'Check error before relying on content' and warns that private-network and unsafe URLs are rejected, which helps the agent decide and handle failures correctly.

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