skuuy_read_url

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, yet the description discloses cleaning behavior (ads, cookie banners, nav chrome, script tags stripped), best-effort JS rendering, a zero-log privacy guarantee, and the honest limits around paywalls and CAPTCHAs. That is substantial behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler, leading with what the tool returns. Minor redundancy from "best-effort" appearing twice, but each clause still carries information.

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?

With no output schema and only a single sentence on the return payload, the description does well by stating the markdown/cleaned output explicitly. The main remaining hole is the undocumented format and timeout parameters, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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 33% – only url is documented, while format (enum markdown/text) and timeout_s (5-60s default 20) carry no descriptive text. The description does not compensate: "returns clean markdown" hints at the format default but never explains the text option or the timeout bound.

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?

"Fetches any public URL and returns clean markdown" is a precise verb+resource+output statement. It cleanly separates this content-retrieval tool from siblings like skuuy_resolve_dns, skuuy_check_ports, or skuuy_get_egress_ip, which are network probes rather than page readers.

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 "Honest scope" sentence gives an explicit exclusion: hard anti-bot challenges/interactive CAPTCHA are not bypassed, and soft paywalls/JS pages are best-effort. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for those blocked cases, so routing is only partly resolved.

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