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. It mentions 'cached versions' but doesn't explain how caching works, what 'compare' entails (e.g., output format, success/failure conditions), or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a comparison tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the comparison outputs (e.g., differences, similarity scores) or behavioral aspects like error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It implies parameters for URLs and caching but doesn't elaborate on semantics like URL formats or cache behavior. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already documents parameters well.

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 purpose: comparing content between two URLs or cached versions. It specifies the verb 'compare' and the resource 'content', making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'monitor_changes' or 'track_changes_detailed', which might also involve comparisons.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'monitor_changes' or 'track_changes_detailed' that might serve similar purposes, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.

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