web_fetch

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses fallback behavior and API key requirements, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., if both services fail), rate limits, or handling of dynamic content. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentences: first states core purpose, second adds essential behavioral detail. No extraneous content, well-structured.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks crucial parameter explanations, error behavior, and auth specifics beyond key requirements. For a tool with 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to be complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about any of the 6 parameters (url, query, format, extract_depth, only_main_content, timeout). The agent must rely solely on parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 and extract' and the resource 'content of a web page', specifying output format (markdown/plain text). It also mentions fallback behavior, distinguishing it from sibling web_search which likely searches rather than fetches a specific URL.

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 provides context for when to use by noting fallback to Firecrawl and required API keys. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to web_search, but the sibling context implies differentiation. A slight gap in explicit guidance.

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