MCP Web Scrape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output format (Markdown with citation) but fails to describe critical behaviors such as error handling (e.g., for invalid URLs or access restrictions), performance characteristics (e.g., timeouts or rate limits), or side effects (e.g., caching implications from the useCache parameter). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external web resources.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Extract and clean content from a web page') and immediately states the output ('returning Markdown with citation'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 web content extraction (involving external resources, multiple parameters, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output structure (beyond 'Markdown with citation'), error conditions, or behavioral constraints, which are critical for an agent to use this tool effectively. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these missing contextual elements.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all 6 parameters with their types, defaults, and purposes. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining trade-offs between formats or the implications of bypassRobots. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Extract and clean content from a web page') and the output ('returning Markdown with citation'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_text_only or extract_structured_data that focus on specific content types. It uses precise verbs and specifies the resource (web page 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_text_only, extract_structured_data, or summarize_content. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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