http_request

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to fully disclose side effects. The description does mention sending cookies and writing bytes to a file, which are important behaviors. However, it does not warn that POST/PUT/DELETE methods can modify or destroy remote resources, which is relevant given the destructiveHint annotation.

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 compact at two sentences and conveys the core purpose, key parameters, and a specific fallback use case. The phrasing 'fetches what a server-side request gets a login page for' is slightly awkward, but it does not add unnecessary length or repetition.

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 explains the return behavior (inline text up to max_length, or bytes written via save_to) but lacks details about response status codes, headers, or error conditions. Since there is no output schema, a bit more information about the response format would improve completeness, though the description is sufficient for basic usage.

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 each parameter having a description. The description adds useful context for save_to and max_length (e.g., writing bytes for PDFs and capping inline text). It does not go beyond the schema to clarify headers or method semantics, but the schema already covers these adequately, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as an HTTP request from the browser with the user's cookies, meant to fetch authenticated content such as invoices, JSON, or exports. It also distinguishes the PDF-reading use case from read_page, giving a specific purpose. It could be more direct in naming the action 'perform an HTTP request', but the intent is clear.

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 explains when to use the tool: when a server-side request would get a login page, for authenticated data, and for PDFs where read_page fails. It also hints at not using read_page for PDFs. It does not explicitly enumerate all alternative tools, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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