web_fetch

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool extracts readable text without a browser and can return raw HTML via the raw_html parameter. However, it omits details on error handling, timeouts, redirects, and the exact format of the returned text, which are important for agent decision-making.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core action and the second provides concrete use cases. Every word adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action and use cases. However, it does not describe the return value format (e.g., plain text string) or error conditions, which agents need to know to use the output correctly.

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. The description adds value by framing the parameters within the context of 'extracting readable text without a browser', clarifying when raw_html and max_length matter. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions, earning a 4.

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 'Fetch a URL and extract readable text content' with specific verbs and resources, and provides three use cases. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_page_html or web_search, which might cause confusion when the agent needs to fetch an external URL vs get current page content.

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 gives clear contexts for use (reading docs, verifying links, inspecting pages without a browser) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool (e.g., for dynamic pages or current session) and does not mention alternatives like get_page_html or web_search.

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