fetch_webpage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the use of a headless browser if a specific path is set, the fallback to urllib with a warning, and the http/https restriction. This adds useful context beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention error handling or max_chars behavior.

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, front-loads the primary action, and every clause adds value. It is concise without being under-specified, achieving high information density in minimal text.

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 output schema exists (so return values are documented) and the tool is simple, the description covers the main purpose, protocol restriction, and implementation fallback. However, it could mention the max_chars parameter's effect or potential failure modes, but overall it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention max_chars at all, and even the url parameter's format is only implied by the http/https restriction. The tool has 2 parameters, and the description adds no semantic value over the bare schema, leaving a significant gap.

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 extracts readable plain text from a URL, specifies the http/https restriction, and distinguishes it from sibling search tools by focusing on raw URL fetching. The verb 'extract' is specific and the resource (URL) is clear.

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 context of when to use this tool is implicit: when you need to retrieve plain text from a specific URL. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know not to use it for search or presentations. Lacks explicit when-not guidance, but clear context earns a 4.

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