ai_scraper

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that (scraping is read-only). The description adds useful behavioral context about render_javascript being slower and the recommendation to try without it first. However, it doesn't disclose potential rate limits, auth requirements, or what happens on failure, which would be valuable for a scraping tool.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy with the schema. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the conditional requirements more clearly, but overall it's efficient.

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 tool has an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers the key conditional logic (schema requirement, render_javascript usage) and the tool's scope. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema handles that. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or edge cases, but acceptable for a scraping 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 well. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the conditional requirement for schema and the performance trade-off of render_javascript. This is a baseline 3 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 scrapes web page contents and returns data in a specified format. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ai_crawler (which likely crawls multiple pages) and google_search_scraper (which targets search results) by focusing on a single page scrape with format options.

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 clear guidance on when schema is required (for json/csv/toon formats) and when to use render_javascript (for JS-heavy sites, with a recommendation to try without it first). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives among siblings, but the usage context is well-defined.

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