MCP Web Scrape

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions detection but doesn't explain how detection works (e.g., scanning, analysis methods), what the output looks like, whether it's resource-intensive, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely performs web analysis.

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: 'Detect tracking scripts and privacy-related elements'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters in the schema.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a detection tool. It doesn't explain what the detection results include (e.g., list of trackers, privacy scores), how they're returned, or any behavioral aspects like execution time or error handling. This leaves too much undefined for practical agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (url, trackerTypes, useCache). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as URL format requirements or cache behavior details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Detect tracking scripts and privacy-related elements' with a specific verb ('detect') and target resources ('tracking scripts and privacy-related elements'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'analyze_cookies' or 'check_privacy_policy' by focusing on detection rather than analysis or checking, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 many sibling tools like 'analyze_cookies', 'check_privacy_policy', and 'extract_structured_data' that might overlap in privacy/analysis contexts, there's no indication of when this specific detection tool is preferred or what its unique value is.

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