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 'diff analysis' but doesn't explain how changes are tracked (e.g., over time, with notifications), what the output includes, or any limitations like rate limits or data retention. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves monitoring and comparison.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes to 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 complexity of change tracking and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like how diffs are generated, stored, or reported, nor does it address potential side effects or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured output info, more detail is needed to guide effective 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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any extra meaning or context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the impact of 'sensitivity' levels or 'useCache' on results. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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: 'Track detailed changes in web page content with diff analysis.' It specifies the verb ('track'), resource ('web page content'), and method ('diff analysis'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'monitor_changes,' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 'monitor_changes' or other analysis tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing previous snapshots or specific use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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