scrape_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and excels. It details advanced features like antibot bypass, JavaScript rendering, captcha solving, and proxy support, and includes critical cost information (token costs) that isn't in the schema. This provides rich context on performance, capabilities, and resource implications beyond basic scraping.

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 well-structured with sections (Features, Use cases, Token costs) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the token costs section is lengthy and could be more concise, and some details (like specific browser profiles) might be excessive. Overall, it's efficient but has minor verbosity.

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 complexity of the tool (8 parameters, advanced features) and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and costs. The main gap is the lack of output details (e.g., what content is returned), but this is partially mitigated by the clear purpose. It's robust but not fully exhaustive.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it mentions features like JS rendering but doesn't explain parameters like 'js_wait_for'). This meets the baseline of 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's purpose as 'Scrape content from any web page with advanced antibot bypass,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'batch_scrape' and 'scrape_async' by emphasizing advanced features, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The title is null, so the description carries the full burden of clarity effectively.

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 'Use cases' section provides clear context for when to use this tool (e.g., for JavaScript-rendered content, pages behind protections, or with captchas), which helps guide selection. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'batch_scrape' for bulk operations or 'scrape_async' for asynchronous tasks, missing explicit sibling differentiation.

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