fetch_page_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cleaning' and a configurable length limit, but does not disclose return format, error handling, redirects, authentication requirements, or what happens with non-HTML content. This is insufficient for a fetch tool.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action and configurable option. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant words, and every element is relevant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the returned content looks like, how the max length is applied, and behavior on failures. The description is too minimal to be complete for a fetch operation, leaving significant gaps for an agent to act reliably.

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% for both parameters, so the schema fully documents 'url' and 'maxContentLength'. The description's mention of a 'configurable content length limit' aligns with maxContentLength but adds little beyond what the schema already conveys, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 and cleans the main content of a web page, with a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'search' tool by focusing on page content extraction rather than search, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'search' tool. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the generic purpose statement.

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