http_request

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses non-obvious behavior: cookies are sent for the URL's origin, text bodies are inline but capped by max_length, and save_to redirects the bytes to disk. Its main gap is that it frames the tool purely as a fetch/read even though the schema permits POST/PUT/DELETE and the annotations flag destructiveHint=true — it does not contradict the annotations, but it undersells the mutation capability.

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?

Front-loaded with the core concept and every clause carries information (cookie auth, capping, PDF workaround, no download dialog). It is dense and slightly run-on across em-dashes, but wastes little.

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 6-parameter tool with a nested headers object and no output schema, the description covers the behavior an agent needs to call it correctly, including the key safeguards (cookie scope, inline cap, save_to). It stops short of mentioning write-method implications or failure modes, but is otherwise sufficient.

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 already 100%, so 3 is the floor, but the prose adds real meaning for max_length (the inline body cap) and save_to (writes bytes instead of returning them, for PDFs/images/archives) rather than merely restating the schema.

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?

It pairs a specific verb and mechanism ('HTTP request sent from the browser, with the logged-in user's cookies') with the exact contrast that matters: it reaches content a server-side request only sees a login page for. It also names the sibling it is not (read_page) and the download flows it replaces, so an agent can place it without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use cases (authenticated invoices, JSON, exports) and explicit when-not/when-else: use save_to for a PDF because read_page returns nothing on a PDF tab, and use this instead of clicking Download or 'Save as'. The routing to alternatives is concrete rather than implied.

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