Web Search MCP

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 mentions 'extract its readable content and title using Readability', which implies processing and transformation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid URLs. For a tool that interacts with external resources, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Fetch a page') and includes essential details ('extract its readable content and title using Readability'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 the complexity of fetching and processing web pages, with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., structured data with content and title), error conditions, or dependencies like network access. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in varied contexts.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explicitly mention the 'url' parameter or provide any details beyond what the schema indicates (e.g., format expectations or examples). Since the schema is minimal and self-explanatory for a URL, the description adds no extra semantic value, meeting the baseline for adequate but not helpful.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Fetch a page and extract its readable content and title using Readability.' This specifies the verb ('fetch'), resource ('page'), and extraction method ('Readability'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_web', which might have overlapping functionality for web content retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_web'. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone. This omission reduces its effectiveness in helping the agent select the right tool.

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