get_page_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the rendering path (headless Chromium) and what is omitted (no screenshot), but says nothing about JS execution, load/wait behavior, timeouts, network restrictions, or whether the fetch is read-only and side-effect free.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb, mechanism, and return payload in order of importance. Every clause earns its place.

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, the description correctly enumerates the return fields (title, accessibility snapshot, visible text), which is the key missing structured information. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though behavioral context like timeouts and JS handling is absent.

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 the single url parameter, and the description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already states (public http(s) URL). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (open), resource (URL), rendering mechanism (headless Chromium), and exactly what is returned (title, accessibility snapshot, visible text). The parenthetical '(no screenshot)' explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling screenshot_url.

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 '(no screenshot)' clause effectively tells the agent when to pick this over screenshot_url, i.e. when textual/page content is wanted rather than an image. However it never names the sibling or states a positive selection condition, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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