Fetch URL

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: READ-ONLY constraint (though annotations already have readOnlyHint=true), no JavaScript execution, auto-transformation of Git URLs, handling of truncated content via cacheResourceUri, and error handling strategies. These details provide practical implementation guidance that annotations alone don't cover.

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 extremely well-structured with clear role/task/constraints sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential operational guidance. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently organized without any wasted words.

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 a web fetching tool with multiple operational constraints, the description provides substantial behavioral context. However, without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values or format details. The annotations cover safety aspects well, and the description adds important implementation details, making it mostly complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value.

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 with specific verbs ('fetch', 'convert') and resources ('public webpages', 'HTML to clean Markdown'). The role/task structure explicitly defines it as a Web Content Extractor that fetches and converts web content, making the purpose immediately clear and distinct.

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 constraints section provides clear guidance on when to use specific features (e.g., use task mode for large pages/timeouts, retry with task mode for queue_full errors). However, there are no explicit alternatives mentioned since there are no sibling tools, so it doesn't differentiate from other tools.

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