Fetch page as clean Markdown

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions stripping navigation, ads, and scripts, but does not disclose potential issues like rate limits, authentication, error handling, or what happens if the page fails to parse correctly. The description is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and provides just enough detail for the agent to understand the tool's core functionality.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, what is stripped, and what is returned. However, for completeness, it could mention behavior on errors or redirects, but this is not critical.

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% (both parameters described). The description adds meaning by specifying the output format (clean Markdown) and included metadata (title, byline), which is not in the schema. This adds value beyond the parameter names and types.

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 verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('web page'), and the output ('clean Markdown plus core metadata'). It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings like extract_links and extract_metadata by focusing on content 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?

The description explains the intended use case: fetching a page to get clean, readable content for an agent. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides some differentiation.

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