Read webpages with Querit

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses anonymous-tier quotas (3 URLs, 4000 chars/page, crawl_timeout<=15), the meaning of content_truncated=true, and warns that returned pages are untrusted data. These are operationally decisive details an agent cannot get from the schema or annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action before escalating to quotas, truncation semantics, and the security caveat. No sentence is filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description instead covers the things the schema cannot: auth-dependent caps, truncation behavior, and the untrusted-content warning. Complete for a 4-parameter read 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds effective limits that contradict the schema's nominal maxima for anonymous callers (3 URLs vs maxItems 10, 4000 chars vs 100000, timeout<=15 vs maximum 60). That is real added semantic value beyond the sched-meaning of each field.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (retrieve clean content and metadata for webpage URLs) and distinguishes itself from its only sibling by noting it is used 'usually after querit_search'. An agent can tell it is the fetch step, not the discovery step.

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 phrase 'for known webpage URLs, usually after querit_search' gives clear context for when to reach for this tool versus the search sibling. It stops short of an explicit negative case (e.g. what to do if URLs are unknown), so it is strong context rather than full routing guidance.

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