scrape

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that fetches go through residential proxies with real-browser TLS fingerprints (implying anti-blocking), the cost per page ($0.0002), and that failed fetches are free. This goes beyond obvious behavior, though it doesn't mention rate limits, auth, or detailed error handling. Still, it provides meaningful operational context.

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?

Three sentences with zero wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded; then usage guidance, alternatives, and cost are presented logically. The pricing note is a useful addition without bloat.

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?

Despite 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical decision points (render, extract, ai_prompt, cost) enough for an agent to call correctly. Some parameters (country, contentMode, waitForSelector) are not elaborated, but they are well-described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds sufficient contextual guidance for a complex 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining when to set render (only if absent from raw HTML), and how extract and ai_prompt are used for structured data. It also clarifies that summary mode returns metadata only via schema description. This enriches the schema's parameter meanings.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches a single URL and returns it as Markdown, HTML, or plain text. This is a specific verb+resource, and it implicitly distinguishes from siblings like crawl (which implies multiple pages) by saying 'one URL'. The mention of extract and ai_prompt for structured data further clarifies the tool's scope.

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?

Provides concrete guidance for when to use render (only if content absent from raw HTML) and when to use extract/ai_prompt for structured data. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., crawl for multi-page) or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is clear for parameter usage but not tool selection.

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