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. While 'translate' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires external API calls, has rate limits, affects the original content, or what the output format looks like. The description mentions web page content but doesn't clarify if this is a live translation service or cached translation. Significant behavioral details are missing for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 straightforward translation tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in communicating the tool's function.

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 translation tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, output format, and usage scenarios. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral transparency that annotations would normally provide.

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 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain URL requirements, language code formats beyond examples, or cache behavior implications. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Translate web page content to different languages' - a specific verb ('translate') and resource ('web page content'). It distinguishes from most sibling tools which focus on analysis, extraction, or validation rather than translation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential translation alternatives that might exist in other contexts.

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. Among the 50+ sibling tools, there's no explicit translation alternative listed, but the description doesn't mention this tool's specific scope or any prerequisites. It lacks context about when translation is appropriate versus other content processing tools like 'detect_language' or 'extract_content'.

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