Fetch reference site

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

The description discloses that the tool returns structured data fields (title, headings, tables, etc.), which gives some behavioral insight. It does not mention failure modes, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with inaccessible pages, and annotations are absent.

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 concise and well-structured, with the action stated first and the output details and downstream usage mentioned efficiently. No redundant or verbose 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?

The description gives a clear high-level purpose and output format, and it hints at downstream integration. However, it lacks details about constraints on input, error behavior, or the depth of the structured extraction, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 schema provides no per-parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'maxTextChars' indirectly through the structured data output, but it does not explain the meaning of the parameter, its unit, or the effect of the minimum/maximum constraints. The 'url' parameter is obvious from context but not formally described.

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 states the specific action 'Fetch a public web page' and distinguishes the tool from siblings by explaining that results feed into card tools. It does not explicitly name sibling tools it differs from, but the downstream use case clarifies its role.

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 implies when to use the tool—when needing structured web content for card creation—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like read_local_file. The 'and so on' phrase is vague about the full range of downstream tools.

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