web_scrape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a $0.001 USDC cost via x402; it does not state what inputs are required, whether mutations or side effects occur, what the output looks like, rate limits, or failure modes. The cost is a transactional detail, not a behavioral explanation.

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 short and free of verbose filler, but the 'Web & SEO tool' label is redundant with the name. The cost sentence is the only substantive information, yet it does not compensate for the lack of functional description. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.

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 tool is complex (web scraping) and lacks both annotations and an output schema. The description fails to provide essential context such as the target URL, scraping method, return value, or limitations. Given the many sibling tools, the description is far too incomplete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The schema exposes only a generic 'params' object with no defined properties. The description adds no meaning about expected fields, URL formats, selectors, or output options. Although schema coverage is marked as 100%, that coverage is superficial because the sole parameter is an opaque container, and the description does nothing to clarify its contents.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool's name ('web scrape — Web & SEO tool') and provides no specific verb, resource, or outcome. It does not clarify what 'web scrape' actually does (e.g., extract content from a URL, scrape links, or return HTML). The only additional detail is the price, which does not explain purpose.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes closely related tools like read_url, crawl_website, get_og_metadata, and scrape_meta_tags, but the description does not differentiate web_scrape from these or specify scenarios where one is preferred. The only operational note is the cost, not usage context.

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