scrape

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description simply restates the fetching behavior without detailing rate limits, authentication, costs, or error handling. It lacks the depth expected for a network-scraping tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It contains no fluff and is appropriately sized for its purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool with low schema coverage. It lacks details on required parameters, optional behavior (render_js, country), and integration with sibling tools. An agent could not reliably determine how to fill all parameters from this description 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 only 20% (only 'premium' is described), and the description does not compensate. It mentions examples of provider values ('scraperapi, scrapingbee') and the URL implicitly, but leaves country, render_js, and required provider semantics unclear. This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool's function: 'Fetch a URL through a managed scraping API.' It uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('URL'), and the managed scraping API context distinguishes it from sibling proxy-management tools.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or point to sibling tools like list_providers or get_proxies. The intended use is implied by the tool's name and purpose, but there is no actionable comparison.

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