md

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of describing behavior. It only states that Markdown is fetched, without explaining rendering, config effects, output format details, or limitations. 'Fit Markdown' adds confusion rather than transparency.

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 very short but wastes words on the unclear 'and fit Markdown' phrase. It is under-specified rather than concise, leaving the reader with an incomplete and slightly confusing message.

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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is inadequate. It omits any explanation of browser/crawler configs, return behavior, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving major gaps in actionable context.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the url, browser_config, or crawler_config parameters. The parameter names are only minimally self-explanatory, and the config objects remain undefined.

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 names the core action ('Fetch Markdown for a URL') but muddies it with the ambiguous phrase 'and fit Markdown,' which is not meaningful. It vaguely distinguishes from siblings like html or extract, but does not explicitly state the markdown-specific scope.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extract, html, or crawl. The description lacks any contextual cues about appropriate use cases or exclusions.

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