Mirror a website form

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently discloses the two-phase interaction (fetch/extract/render, then user submission returning values), the 'public web page' scope, and how the payload feeds submit_web_form. It doesn't mention error cases or limitations, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each clause adds essential information. No filler or repetition; the description efficiently captures the full workflow.

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?

For a moderate-complexity tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers the input (URL), the action (extract/render), and the output flow (payload to submit_web_form). It lacks edge-case details like handling multiple forms (though formIndex exists) or failure modes, but these are secondary.

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 67% (title and formIndex are documented, url is not). The description adds context about form extraction and the submission payload but does not directly explain parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for partial schema coverage.

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 uses specific verbs ('fetch', 'extract', 'render') and identifies the resource (a public web page's form). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like fetch_reference and submit_web_form by explaining the interactive card lifecycle and returning a structured payload for submit_web_form.

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 explains the intended flow (fetch, extract, render, submit back to chat) and names the downstream tool submit_web_form, giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient to differentiate it from create_form_card or fetch_reference.

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