Fetch reference site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'public web page' and 'readable text', which convey some constraints and processing behavior. But it does not disclose error handling, page size limits, redirects, or whether JavaScript is executed. It adds some value but leaves important behavioral gaps.

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 compact and efficient: two sentences, the first stating the core action and output, the second explaining integration. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description lists the return fields (title, headings, tables, etc.) and suggests integration with card tools. However, it lacks details on the output structure, error behavior, and the maxTextChars parameter, making it only partially complete for a 2-parameter tool with no output schema.

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 compensate for parameter explanations. It implies the 'url' parameter via 'Fetch a public web page', but the optional 'maxTextChars' parameter is completely omitted. The description does not add any details about parameter formats, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema already shows, so it fails to compensate.

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 function: 'Fetch a public web page and return structured data', followed by a specific list of extracted elements. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_local_file (local files) and card creation tools (which consume the data).

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 explicitly instructs how to use the results: 'Feed the results into the card tools (tables into create_table_card, numbers into create_chart_card, and so on)'. This provides a clear use case and implies this tool is a data source for card creation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like read_local_file or mirror_web_form, so it falls short of a 5.

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