fetch_url_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not behavioral traits. It doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, what 'visible text' means (e.g., excludes scripts/styles), or performance characteristics. The description is minimal beyond the core function.

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 extremely concise with zero waste: a clear purpose statement followed by a brief parameter explanation. It's front-loaded with the main function and structured with a labeled 'Args' section, making it easy to parse efficiently.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no annotations but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete for basic use. It covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like text extraction scope or error cases, which could be important for an agent's decision-making.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'url' by specifying it's 'The URL to fetch text from,' which clarifies its role beyond the schema's basic type definition. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this adequately compensates, though more detail on URL format expectations could improve it.

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 specific action ('Download all visible text') and resource ('from a URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_page_links (which gets links) or brave_search_and_fetch (which includes search). The verb 'download' and scope 'all visible text' provide precise differentiation.

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 implies usage for extracting text content from URLs, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_page_links or when not to use it (e.g., for non-text content). The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation or exclusion criteria.

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