Add a page to the knowledge base

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

The description discloses the core mutating behavior (fetching and adding text) beyond what annotations indicate. It does not mention potential side effects like duplicate entries, fetch failures, or processing delays, but with annotations already covering non-readonly/non-idempotent traits, this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences with the action stated first and usage guidance second. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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?

The description provides enough context for correct invocation: what the tool does, when to use it, and when to prefer an alternative. It does not detail failure modes or content-extraction nuances, but the schema and annotations cover the essential invocation details.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full parameter meaning.

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 fetches one web page and adds its text to the knowledge base, using specific verbs and a clear resource. It is explicitly distinguished from the related start_crawl tool by single-page versus whole-site scope.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this for a single page' and directly names the alternative for whole-site ingestion: 'To take in a whole site, use start_crawl instead.' This makes the selection criteria clear.

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