websearch-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses LLM processing and default summarization behavior when prompt is omitted. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: timeout policies, redirect handling, content size limits, or error responses.

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?

Front-loaded with clear action sentence followed by structured Args section. No redundant text, though the Args format is slightly technical/docstring-like rather than conversational.

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 output schema exists, the description appropriately omits return value details. Parameter documentation is complete, but for a web-fetching tool, the absence of error handling, retry logic, or content type constraints leaves gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage (only titles). The Args section compensates by documenting both 'url' and 'prompt', including the optional status and default summary behavior of the prompt parameter. Provides sufficient semantic meaning absent from schema.

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 specific actions (fetch, extract, process) and resource (URL). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'web_search' (which queries multiple sources) by emphasizing 'single URL' and LLM processing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'web_search' or 'image_description'. No mention of prerequisites like valid URL formats or rate limit considerations.

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