fidelity_page_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents well and implies a read operation, but does not mention that supplying url causes navigation (a side effect), nor any auth or permission requirements.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the returned content, then the optional navigation behavior, then the use case. No 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?

With one optional parameter and no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back and when navigation occurs. Only the side effect of URL navigation and any access prerequisites are left unstated.

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 coverage is 0% for the single url parameter, so the description must compensate. It does explain that url is optional and triggers opening the page first, but gives no format, domain, or path detail — partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and the exact resources returned — buttons, links, form fields and tables — plus the fields (id, aria-label, text). It is clearly distinct from the financial-data siblings like fidelity_get_quote or fidelity_place_order, though it does not explicitly say so.

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?

'For fixing selectors' gives a concrete when-to-use context, and 'optionally after opening a Fidelity URL' explains the trigger for the url param. No exclusions or named alternatives are given, but the intended situation is clear.

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