http_request

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint true and readOnlyHint false, but the description adds critical context: the request carries browser cookies, text bodies are capped by max_length, and save_to writes bytes to a path. It explains why read_page fails on PDFs. No contradictions with annotations.

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 paragraph that front-loads the key feature (carries session cookies) and provides necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 addresses authentication and binary content handling effectively, but lacks details on response structure (e.g., status codes, headers) and error behavior. Given the tool's complexity and no output schema, more context on return types and possible failures would improve completeness.

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 100% with descriptions for all 6 parameters. The description adds semantic value by explaining how max_length and save_to interact (text vs. binary) and the effect of method HEAD as noted in schema. This goes beyond the schema's attribute descriptions.

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 the tool makes HTTP requests from the browser, carrying session cookies, which distinguishes it from server-side requests. It explicitly mentions fetching authenticated content like invoices and JSON, and explains the use of save_to for binary files such as PDFs, differentiating from read_page.

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 clearly explains that the tool carries session cookies, making it suitable for authenticated content. It provides explicit guidance on using save_to for binary content like PDFs instead of read_page. However, it does not explicitly list when to avoid using this tool or compare with other tools beyond the PDF scenario.

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