scrape_as_html

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the response is HTML; it says nothing about JS rendering, timeouts, paywalls/anti-bot behavior, or whether the HTML is raw or post-processed.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and ending on the differentiator (HTML output). There is no filler, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry more of the return-value and failure-mode burden; 'results in HTML' is thin for a web-scraping call that may return error pages, blocked responses, or empty bodies. It is adequate for invoking the tool but not for anticipating what comes back.

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 single url parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema offers only type/format. The description contributes a little semantic value ('single webpage URL', implying one URL and not a list), but adds nothing about redirects, query strings, or URL format expectations.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('scrape a single webpage URL') and the output form ('HTML'), which implicitly contrasts with the sibling scrape_as_markdown. It does not explicitly name that sibling or scraping_browser_get_html, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 word 'single' hints this is for one URL rather than batch, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus scrape_as_markdown, scrape_batch, or the scraping_browser_* family. The agent must infer selection from the output format alone.

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