visit_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects such as taking or permanently saving screenshots, or that it injects cookies. The phrase 'extract its content' implies read-only access, which is potentially misleading given the screenshot capabilities.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no fluff, placing the core action first. However, it omits any mention of additional functionality like screenshots, which slightly underrepresents the tool's scope.

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?

The tool can take screenshots and save them permanently, yet the description focuses only on 'extract its content'. There is no output schema, and the return format is never explained. For a tool with multiple modes and side effects, this description is incomplete.

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 100%, so all four parameters (url, cookies, takeScreenshot, savePermanently) are already described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Visit a webpage and extract its content'. This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_web' (which finds pages) and 'take_screenshot' (which only captures the screen).

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cases like accessing a specific URL directly vs. searching, nor does it note any prerequisites or exclusions.

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