fetch_clean_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses parameters and defaults (max_chars, timeout) but does not mention behavior like robots.txt handling, JavaScript execution, error handling, or the extraction algorithm. Some transparency but gaps remain.

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: a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of args. No wasted words, front-loaded purpose, and easy to scan.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and inputs. It does not describe the output format or edge cases, but the output schema can fill that gap. Minor completeness gap.

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 0% (no descriptions in schema). The description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter: url, max_chars with default and max, timeout with default. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 fetches a web page and extracts clean readable text. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like extract_by_selector (CSS selectors) and extract_links (link extraction) by specifying a general clean text 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 implies use for extracting readable text from a URL but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no guidance on when to prefer extract_by_selector or other siblings.

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