MCP Web Scrape

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'combining multiple analysis tools' which hints at aggregation behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, whether it makes external requests, rate limits, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate transparency.

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 sentence that efficiently states the core function. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and doesn't waste words. However, it could be more front-loaded with specific value since it's somewhat generic.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive reports' contain, how analysis tools are combined, what the output looks like, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that presumably aggregates multiple analyses, more context about scope and limitations 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 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, defaults, and requirements. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 states the tool 'generate[s] comprehensive reports combining multiple analysis tools', which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what resources it acts on or what analysis tools it combines. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'analyze_performance' or 'generate_sitemap' that might also produce reports. The description is somewhat vague rather than tautological.

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 the many sibling analysis tools. There's no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or specific contexts where this comprehensive report generation is preferred over individual analysis tools. The agent must 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.