MCP Web Scrape

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 behavioral disclosure. While 'analyze' suggests a read operation, the description doesn't disclose whether this tool makes network requests, has rate limits, requires authentication, what happens when useCache is false, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point with zero waste.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'performance metrics' includes beyond the enum values in the schema, doesn't describe the output format, doesn't mention any constraints or requirements, and doesn't differentiate from closely related sibling tools. Given the complexity of performance analysis and lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'performance metrics' specifically means, how different metrics affect the analysis, or provide examples of URL formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 analyzes web page performance metrics, which is a specific verb (analyze) + resource (web page performance metrics). It distinguishes from some siblings like analyze_competitors or analyze_readability, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from analyze_page_speed which appears to be a closely related sibling tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like analyze_page_speed and benchmark_performance that likely overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this tool is appropriate versus those alternatives or what specific performance aspects it covers.

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