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 states what gets validated but doesn't describe how the validation works, what the output format might be, whether it makes network requests, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses parallel structure ('structure, accessibility, and SEO'). Every word earns its place without redundancy or 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?

For a validation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what validation results look like, what standards are used, whether validation is synchronous or asynchronous, or what happens when validation fails. The agent lacks crucial context about the tool's behavior and outputs.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'structure', 'accessibility', or 'SEO' validation entails, or provide context about the 'useCache' parameter. 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: 'Validate HTML structure, accessibility, and SEO' - a specific verb ('validate') with the resource ('HTML') and scope ('structure, accessibility, and SEO'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'validate_robots' (which validates robots.txt) or 'check_broken_links' (which checks links), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible alternatives.

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, when it's appropriate compared to other validation tools like 'validate_robots', or any context about typical use cases. 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.