Fetch readable text from any URL

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates the output is 'readable text' but does not detail behavior for inaccessible URLs, redirects, or dynamic content. The catch-all nature is clear, but more transparency on limitations or processing is needed.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and context. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides examples, but it could be slightly more structured or split for readability.

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 has two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the tool's role as a catch-all and provides usage context. It could mention the return format more explicitly but is sufficient.

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%, with both parameters described adequately. The description adds context about returning readable text but does not enhance parameter details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches any URL and returns readable text, positioning it as a catch-all for sources without dedicated tools. It lists specific examples like Zeno.org and marxists.org, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly frames the tool as a catch-all for URLs lacking a dedicated tool, providing good context on when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tools cover specific sources, so the guidance is strong.

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