scrape

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the payment model (paid per call via x402, no signup), the output format (title, markdown, plain text), and that it's a read-only operation. It lacks details on rate limits or error handling, but for a simple tool this is adequate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, input/output, and use case/payment model. No wasted words.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all necessary information: what it does, how to use it, what to expect, and special conditions (payment). It is fully sufficient.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with a basic description. The tool's description adds meaning by explaining what happens with the URL ('Get back the page title, readable markdown, and plain text') and the expected input (a URL). This goes beyond the schema.

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 reads web pages and returns clean text and markdown. It specifies the action (read, fetch, scrape) and the resource (web pages). The sibling tools are search-oriented, so this tool's distinct purpose is well-defined.

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 includes explicit use cases: 'Use to let the agent read pages, fetch articles/docs it can't access, scrape content, and feed RAG.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context of siblings implies this is for direct URL access, not search.

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