fetch_webpage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the basic function and does not mention potential side effects, redirects, timeouts, response format details, or error behavior. For a network operation, this lack of context is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately identifies the action and the object, making it highly scannable.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not describe return values (though 'raw HTML content' implies them), error conditions, or how this tool compares to the sibling tools. The presence of siblings and lack of an output schema mean additional context would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the meaning that the result is raw HTML, which is somewhat beyond the schema's simple 'URL of the webpage', but it does not provide extra detail about location constraints or formatting of the URL parameter.

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 action ('Fetches'), the resource ('raw HTML content of a webpage'), and the source ('from the given URL'). The phrase 'raw HTML' explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings fetch_webpage_text and fetch_webpage_markdown, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for situations needing raw HTML, as opposed to text or markdown, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Since sibling tools exist, this is a missed opportunity to guide selection.

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