web_fetch

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

With no annotations, the description covers the return format (dict with title, content, links) and input requirement (absolute URL). However, it does not disclose limitations, error handling, or potential issues like timeouts, making it moderately transparent.

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 a clear Args/Returns structure, no extra words, and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence is necessary.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, output schema exists), the description adequately covers input constraints and output structure. It lacks mention of error handling or edge cases, but overall complete for its complexity.

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 description adds meaning to the 'url' parameter beyond the schema by specifying it must be absolute and include http/https. With 0% schema coverage, this compensates well for the single parameter.

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 readable content of a web page using a specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'web page'. It distinguishes from sibling web_search by implying this is for a specific URL's content, not search results.

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 indicates when to use it (to fetch page content) but does not provide when-not-to-use or compare with sibling web_search. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but the context is clear.

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