Read a web page as Markdown

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses content extraction behavior (stripping nav/ads/footers), JavaScript rendering support, and a cost of 1 credit – all useful for invocation decisions.

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?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded with the fetch/return behavior first, then usage, then capabilities, then cost. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple one-shot read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (clean Markdown main content), when to use it, and its behavioral traits. The only minor gap is it never mentions the max_chars truncation behavior, but the schema handles that parameter adequately.

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%, so both url and max_chars are fully documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about max_chars truncation or URL formatting, so it does not exceed what the structured fields already provide.

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 and resource ('Fetch a web page and return its main content as clean Markdown') with the cleaned scope spelled out (no navigation, ads or footers). The output format implicitly distinguishes it from the extract_* siblings, which return metadata, links, or images rather than readable content.

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?

'Use this to read articles, docs, blog posts or any page the user mentions' gives clear context for when to reach for it. It does not, however, name the siblings (extract_metadata, screenshot, extract_links) or state when those are preferred, so routing is left partly to inference.

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