Extract, process, or summarize web content from URLs. Use when you need to read page content, summarize articles, crawl sites, or extract structured data. Providers: tavily (content extraction), kagi (summarization of pages/videos/podcasts), firecrawl (scraping/crawling/mapping/structured extraction/interactive), exa (content retrieval/similar pages).

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds provider-specific behaviors and mode options, but does not elaborate on potential rate limits, prerequisites, or error handling, which would further enhance transparency.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then lists providers. It is informative without being overly verbose, though listing provider details inline slightly reduces conciseness. Still efficient overall.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and provider capabilities but lacks details on return formats, error handling, or how to choose between providers. Given the complexity (multiple modes and providers) and absence of an output schema, more guidance would improve completeness.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description provides a high-level summary of providers and modes, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already provide for individual parameters.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 states when to use the tool (read page content, summarize, crawl, extract structured data) and lists providers with their specialties. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives for exclusion cases.

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