fetch_page

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the lack of JavaScript rendering, truncation behavior with the 'truncated' flag, robots.txt override behavior, and that HTTP errors are returned in 'status' rather than raised. This is comprehensive and goes beyond basic expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise bulleted parameter list and a final sentence on error handling. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or redundancy.

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 description covers the main behavior (content fetching, format options, truncation, error handling) and notes the 'status' and 'truncated' fields. However, it does not provide a full return structure or mention any response headers/URL that might be included, leaving some ambiguity about the exact response shape.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains 'format', 'max_bytes', and 'obey_robots' in detail, including defaults and effects. The 'url' parameter is implicitly clear from the tool's purpose. This exceeds the schema's bare definitions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single web page and return its content'. It is clear and concise, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract' or 'extract_links'. The 'no JavaScript rendering' note hints at scope but is not a direct alternative comparison.

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 implies usage for retrieving raw page content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, nor does it provide exclusions (e.g., 'for structured data use extract'). The parameter explanations offer context but not direct comparative guidance.

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