google_fetch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses boilerplate stripping, markdown output, 5-URL cap, sequential reading with throttling, max_chars truncation behavior (paragraph boundary, `truncated` and `chars_total` fields), and error handling (`ok: false`). This is rich behavioral detail that goes far beyond what the schema reveals.

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 appropriately sized, with each paragraph serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage guidance, output behavior, limits/parameters, error handling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence contributes value. 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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and underspecified parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage boundaries, output format, limits, parameter behavior, and failure modes. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: `urls` is implicitly defined as the web pages to read, and `max_chars` is fully explained (truncates on paragraph boundary, sets `truncated`/`chars_total`). The cap of 5 URLs also adds meaning to the `urls` parameter. Both parameters are semantically clarified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read web pages as markdown') and immediately distinguishes itself from ordinary HTTP fetch and sibling tools by clarifying its unique value (browser-based fetching for JS-rendered, paywalled, or logged-in content). The purpose is unmistakable and distinctive.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool instead of a plain HTTP fetch ('JS-rendered apps, soft paywalls, cookie-walled articles') and when not to ('for a static public page an ordinary fetch is cheaper'). This is a textbook example of when/when-not usage guidance with a named alternative.

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