extract_webpage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior (stripping clutter, token savings) and mentions truncation and metadata inclusion via parameters. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., fetch failures), rate limits, authentication requirements, or how dynamic content is handled. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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: two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence explains the core action and output; the second gives a quantifiable benefit. Every word earns its place, and the main idea is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects and parameter effects. It lacks some contextual completeness regarding error conditions and network dependencies, but the presence of an output schema and complete parameter descriptions compensates. It is mostly sufficient for an informed AI agent.

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%, meaning the input schema already fully describes each parameter's purpose. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond summarizing the overall behavior. Per the guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high.

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 function: fetch a webpage and return only the main readable content. It specifies what is removed (HTML, scripts, navigation, ads, cookie banners) and quantifies the token savings. This makes the purpose unmistakable and distinct from raw HTML fetching tools.

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 implies usage when you need clean textual content from a URL, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like cache tools or compress_context. Siblings are primarily for context management, so the usage context is somewhat clear, but no direct guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided.

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