web_scrape

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses cost ($0.0025 USDC per call), p99 latency (3500ms), the render tradeoff (real browser, slower, plain text instead of Markdown), the graceful handling of Markdown/plain-text files like llms.txt or README.md, and the near-empty JS failure mode. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before invoking.

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 purpose and default-use statement are front-loaded, and the routing sentence is dense but efficient. It is one long block of prose rather than a broken-up structure, which slightly hurts scanability, but virtually every clause carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns, and it does: title, meta description, main content with headings/lists/links, unchanged pass-through for plain-text files, and up to 100 absolute links when include_links is set. Combined with cost, latency, and fallback guidance, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description restates max_chars/include_links/render and adds only marginally beyond the schema (render's relative slowness and the plain-text output switch), so it does not materially out-inform the structured fields.

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 opening line gives a specific verb+resource ('URL to Markdown web scraper: read any web page as clean, LLM-ready Markdown') and immediately scopes it to 'ONE web page whose URL you have'. It explicitly differentiates from batch, crawl, and search siblings, so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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?

It names itself the 'Default tool for reading ONE web page' and then routes by count: web-read-batch for 2-5, web-scrape-batch for 6-20, site-crawl for a whole site, search-read when there is no URL, and webpage-reader as a JavaScript fallback. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are stated explicitly.

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