inspect_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose a key trait: 'No browser rendering' means JavaScript rendered pages will not work. It also clarifies the page must be public and that extraction yields text, links, and emails, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Two short sentences contain the full operational contract: fetch, extract type, URL class, and rendering limitation. Nothing is wasted and every clause contributes to selection or correct invocation.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it can be called on, and its core limitation. Minor omissions such as failure behavior on non-HTML URLs or rate limit handling, but these are not critical given the exposed simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does: the 'url' parameter has to target a public HTML/text page, not a private, binary, or non-HTML resource. It doesn't spell out URL formatting, but for a single parameter it supplies enough extra semantic context.

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 action: fetch a public HTML/text page and extract text, links, and emails. It clearly distinguishes itself from search and lookup siblings by saying it retrieves a specific page directly rather than searching or resolving domains.

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: use it when you have a direct public HTML/text URL and want extracted content. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives like search_web for discovery or lookup_domain for domain intelligence.

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