terradeed_scrape_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It adds the cost per call ($0.01 USDC) and JS rendering support, which are valuable. However, it omits details like rate limits, error behavior, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 three short sentences covering purpose, cost, and capability. It is front-loaded with the primary function and contains no fluff.

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?

For a simple scraping tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough information to understand the main task and return format. It lacks explicit guidance on alternatives and edge cases, but the core function is well covered.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with full coverage (100%), so the baseline is 3. The description confirms that URLs must be public and mentions JS rendering, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Scrape' and the resource 'any public URL,' with the output 'clean, LLM-ready markdown.' This distinguishes it from siblings like terradeed_extract_structured (structured extraction) and terradeed_check_wallet (wallet check).

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 gives context that it scrapes public URLs and supports JS rendering but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of full guidance.

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