ingest_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: the tool makes network requests, restricts schemes to http/https, blocks private/local hosts, and has an environment variable to override that restriction. It also explains the source parameter's default behavior. It does not cover error handling or authentication, but the output schema may address return values.

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 at four sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: the core function, scheme/address constraints, the network-exclusivity differentiator, and source parameter semantics. There is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (network fetch, security restrictions, indexing), and the description covers the critical contextual aspects: what it does, URL restrictions, the private-address bypass, and how source affects indexing. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. It does not mention title semantics, rate limits, or authentication, but these may be less critical or covered elsewhere.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'source' (defaults to the URL, controls the index key, enables updates) and makes 'url' self-evident from the core action. However, the 'title' parameter is not explained, leaving a gap for a required schema without any descriptive support.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch an http(s) URL, convert it to Markdown, and index it.' This distinguishes it from siblings by explicitly noting it is the only tool that reaches the network, while every other tool works on local files and the local index.

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 provides explicit usage context: it is the sole network-reaching tool, implying it should be used when remote content needs to be ingested. It also notes an exclusion (private/local addresses are forbidden) and a workaround (set ALLOW_PRIVATE_URLS=1), giving clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives like ingest_file or ingest_data.

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