The Web MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions scraping and the return format, but lacks critical details such as rate limits, authentication needs, potential for blocking, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a scraping tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: two sentences efficiently cover the action, supported engines, and output format without wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information in a compact form.

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 complexity of a scraping tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It omits behavioral risks (e.g., rate limiting), error handling, and detailed output expectations beyond 'markdown'. For a tool that interacts with external APIs and returns unstructured data, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 description coverage is low (33%), with only the 'cursor' parameter documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies the 'query' parameter is for search terms and 'engine' selects from the listed options, but doesn't explain semantics like query formatting or cursor usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description partially compensates but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.

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's purpose: 'Scrape search results from Google, Bing or Yandex' specifies the verb (scrape) and resource (search results), and 'Returns SERP results in markdown' indicates the output format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like scrape_as_markdown or search_engine_batch, which appear related but have unspecified distinctions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (scrape_as_markdown, scrape_batch, search_engine_batch). It mentions the supported search engines but offers no context on alternative scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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