Fetch page HTML

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that output is cleaned HTML (scripts, styles, attributes stripped). However, it does not mention potential limitations like size limits, encoding handling, or error behavior.

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, consisting of two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the primary action and includes useful examples efficiently.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose and output. It could be improved by specifying the return format (e.g., 'returns a string of cleaned HTML') but is adequate.

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 the description does not need to add much. The tool description just says 'Fetch a URL' which repeats the schema's 'The URL to fetch' without adding additional meaning or constraints.

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 verb 'Fetch', the resource 'URL', and the output 'cleaned, readable HTML' with specifics of stripping scripts, styles, attributes. It gives examples of use cases (target page, competitor pages, robots.txt, sitemap.xml), distinguishing it from siblings like 'pagespeed' and 'serp'.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, listing common use cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the examples imply usage scenarios.

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