web_fetch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it describes the transformation behavior (removing useless HTML tags, converting to Markdown when simplify is enabled), timeout constraint (10 seconds), and default settings (simplify enabled by default). This provides essential operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and subsequent sentences efficiently add crucial behavioral details (simplification behavior, timeout). Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundancy.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, key behavior, and constraints. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., structure of the content) or error handling, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the simplify parameter's effect, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('fetch a web page', 'return its content') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on direct URL fetching rather than searching. It specifies the resource (web page) and transformation behavior (simplification to Markdown).

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 clear context for when to use this tool (fetching web pages with optional simplification) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies usage for direct URL access rather than search-based retrieval, though it doesn't contrast with the sibling 'web_search' tool by name.

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