add_knowledge_url

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

Description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Performs an outbound HTTP GET (follows redirects, 30s timeout), then chunks and embeds the page. Returns the document id and chunk count.' Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world; description fills in the actual side effects.

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 purpose, no wasted words. Each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 params, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidance, behavioral details, and return values. No gaps identified.

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% (all three parameters described in schema). Description provides no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Fetch a web page server-side and import its content as searchable business knowledge.' It uses specific verbs (fetch, import) and resource (web page), and distinguishes from sibling add_knowledge by noting it's for URLs.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to ingest documentation by URL; to import content you already have, use add_knowledge.' Provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use with a named alternative.

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