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. While 'search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what happens when no matches are found, whether the search is performed locally or remotely, performance characteristics, or what the output format looks like (since there's no output schema). It mentions 'extracted content' but doesn't clarify if this refers to content from a previous extraction step or any text input.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.

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?

For a search tool with 5 well-documented parameters but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's purpose but leaves significant gaps: no output format description, no behavioral context about search mechanics, and no integration guidance with sibling extraction tools. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description itself doesn't provide complete context for effective tool selection and 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 already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, provide examples of valid queries, or clarify the 'content' parameter's relationship to sibling extraction tools. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'Search for specific text patterns within extracted content', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'extract_content' or 'analyze_content' by focusing on search rather than extraction or analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar search tools that might exist.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing extracted content first), nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'extract_keywords', 'detect_language', or 'search' tools that might exist in other contexts. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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