fetch_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses robots.txt respect, Markdown conversion, pagination/truncation behavior with start_index, and the raw:true option for HTML. This goes far beyond what the schema or annotations convey.

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?

Every sentence contributes meaningful information: core behavior, use case, robots.txt, pagination, and raw output. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses straightforward, efficient language without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return format, pagination mechanism, raw option, and a practical use case. It is not fully exhaustive since error handling and the exact meaning of max_length/timeout_ms are omitted, but it is sufficiently complete for correct selection and basic invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly covers raw and start_index, and url is inherently clear. However, max_length and timeout_ms are not described in the text, leaving some parameter semantics to be inferred from names and schema constraints alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch any web page by URL' and states exactly what is returned ('content converted to Markdown, plus title and meta description'). It clearly differentiates itself from the WordPress-specific sibling tools by noting it is 'not limited to the configured WordPress site'.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Useful for pulling content from another page to turn into a WordPress post/page via wp_create_post/wp_create_page.' It does not explicitly contrast with wp_request, but the tool's purpose as external page fetcher is evident enough to guide an agent.

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