search_url

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 'handles various content types' and 'comprehensive error handling,' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, network dependencies, or what constitutes 'various content types.' This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary details but could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating functional and behavioral aspects. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.

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 web fetching tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error types, content type handling specifics, and operational constraints. This makes it insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or edge cases for the URL or timeout. However, the baseline is 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without need for compensation.

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 with specific verbs ('fetch and return') and resource ('plain-text content from a web page URL'). It distinguishes the type of content returned (plain-text) and mentions handling various content types. However, without sibling tools, the differentiation aspect is not applicable, preventing a perfect score.

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 alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts. It mentions 'comprehensive error handling' but does not specify scenarios or limitations, leaving usage decisions unclear for an AI agent.

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