scrape_url

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the effect of javascript=True (slower but handles dynamic content), the role of wait_seconds (only when javascript=True), and the return dictionary containing html, status code, and load time. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but given the tool's nature, this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured with clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, output schema present) and no annotations, the description completely covers parameter roles, return value, and behavioral notes. No additional context is needed for effective use.

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema: it explains the purpose of each parameter (url as webpage URL, javascript for JS rendering, wait_seconds for JS wait time) and their dependencies. This compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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 action ('Scrape a webpage') and outcome ('return its HTML content'), using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like batch_scrape (multiple pages) and extract_data (structured extraction).

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 does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_scrape or crawl_website. Usage context is implied by the tool's name and the mention of 'simple' scraping, but no direct guidance is given.

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