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 'optional CSV export' but doesn't explain key behaviors like whether the tool fetches web content, handles errors, respects robots.txt, or returns structured data. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient to guide safe and effective use.

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 parse HTML tables') and adds a key feature ('optional CSV export'). There is no wasted language, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, output structure, and usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more guidance to compensate, but it doesn't, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'url' parameter's requirements or 'format' options. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Extract and parse HTML tables with optional CSV export.' It specifies the verb ('extract and parse'), resource ('HTML tables'), and capability ('optional CSV export'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract_content' or 'extract_structured_data' that might also handle table extraction, which prevents a perfect score.

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 'extract_content' or 'extract_structured_data' that might overlap in functionality, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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