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. It states the tool generates a summary but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's deterministic, supports multiple languages, handles long inputs, or has rate limits. For a generative tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the core function without unnecessary elaboration.

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, no output schema, and 3 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context on output format, error handling, or limitations. It doesn't explain what the summary looks like or any constraints, leaving gaps for a generative tool.

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 (content, maxLength, format) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'maxLength' is measured or when to choose 'bullets' vs. 'paragraph'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 'Generate a summary of already extracted content' states the verb (generate) and resource (summary), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'extract_content' or 'analyze_readability'. It doesn't specify what type of summary (e.g., abstractive vs. extractive) or target content domains.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It mentions 'already extracted content' but doesn't clarify prerequisites or compare to siblings like 'analyze_readability' for content quality or 'extract_keywords' for key points. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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