fetch_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: extraction of <title> separately, truncation to max_chars (default 20000), and handling of non-HTML responses as-is. Missing details like error behavior or rate limits, but the provided information is substantive.

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 purpose, then usage context, then details. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Could be slightly more concise by combining the first two sentences, but overall 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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain return structure. It mentions returning clean text and extracting <title> separately, but does not specify if the return is a string or an object. Leaves ambiguity about the return format, making it somewhat incomplete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'max_chars' by mentioning default and truncation behavior, but does not describe 'url' or 'timeout_ms' beyond what the schema indicates. Partial coverage, adequate but not comprehensive.

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 fetches a URL and returns clean readable text, stripping HTML and noise. It uses specific verbs ('Fetches', 'returns') and resource ('clean readable text'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'http_request' by focusing on text extraction rather than raw HTTP responses.

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 mentions it is 'Ideal for reading articles, documentation, and web pages without context bloat,' providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling 'http_request' or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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