scrape

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds value by explaining partial success behavior (per-format warnings never fail the whole call) and the effect of onlyMainContent (strips boilerplate via Readability). This enriches the behavioral understanding beyond annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the key use case, then lists formats with brief explanations, mentions important options (onlyMainContent), and ends with an example. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff.

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?

Despite the complexity of multiple formats and nested objects, the description does not detail the output structure for each format. It mentions screenshot returns crawlforge resources but omits explicit return shapes for other formats. Given the absence of an output schema, this is a notable gap for an agent to understand what to expect from the 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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose and behavior of formats (e.g., 'branding' returns design tokens, 'screenshot' renders in a browser and returns crawlforge resources, and the JSON object format for structured extraction). It also provides a concrete example.

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: to scrape a single URL for multiple content formats in one call. It uses a specific verb ('scrape'), identifies the resource (URL), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fetch_url and extract_text by emphasizing multi-format capability.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when needing multiple content formats from a single URL. It also positions it as preferred over the client's built-in web fetch for page content. While it doesn't list alternatives for single-format use, it provides clear context for its primary use case.

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