scrape_page

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that scraping occurs and that Markdown is returned. It does not mention whether JavaScript rendering is enabled by default, how redirects are handled, rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential blocks. The extensive options in the schema are not reflected in the description.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail and remains efficient, though it could benefit from mentioning key options without becoming verbose.

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 a nested options object and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It leaves the agent uncertain about what 'metadata' and 'extracted information' entail, how the tool behaves on dynamic pages, and how it relates to the sibling extraction tools. The description would benefit from naming the available options and clarifying return shape.

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 complete descriptions for all parameters (coverage 100%), so the description does not need to explain them. The description's mention of 'extracted information' is vague but does not conflict with schema; however, it adds little detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Scrape a web page and convert it to Markdown format') and its output (content, metadata, extracted information). It distinguishes itself from the sibling extractors (extract_links, extract_images) by emphasizing full-page conversion rather than specific element extraction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (extract_links, extract_images). It does not specify scenarios or requirements such as needing only links or images, nor does it mention any prerequisites for scraping.

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