Exa get page contents

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses partial-failure semantics ("Failed URLs are listed; the call fails only when every URL failed"), a paid-plan restriction on Snapshot, and the default output mode. It omits auth/rate-limit behavior and per-URL cost expectations beyond the Snapshot note, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four tight clauses, zero filler, front-loaded with the core purpose before capabilities and failure behavior. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 16-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers default behavior, failure semantics, plan gating, and capability modes. What it lacks is guidance on parameter interplay (e.g. content mode vs maxChars vs summaryQuery) and expected return shape, though the schema absorbs most of that.

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 94%, so the schema already explains nearly every parameter, including maxAgeHours semantics and Snapshot exclusivity. The description only restates the maxAgeHours=0 → live crawl mapping and the Snapshot paid-plan caveat, adding little beyond what the schema supplies; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

"Get clean content of known URLs (no search)" states a specific verb and resource and explicitly carves out the boundary against exa_search. An agent can tell instantly that this is a fetch-by-URL tool, not a discovery tool.

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 "(no search)" qualifier and the list of capability modes (live crawl, subpage crawl, link/image extraction, snapshot) give clear context for when this tool applies. It stops short of naming siblings like exa_search or exa_find_similar as explicit alternatives, and leaves the choice among modes to the schema.

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