Fetch and Extract URL Content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: it describes truncation modes with character limits, default settings (standard mode, markdown format), and output formats. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 core purpose, followed by specific features in a structured list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of the tool's behavior and parameters. It could be more complete by addressing error cases or response structure, but it adequately supports the 4-parameter input schema and distinguishes from siblings.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the semantics of 'mode' (truncation options with character estimates) and 'format' (output formats with default). It does not cover 'max_length' or 'url' beyond what the schema implies, but adds meaningful context for two 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('fetches content from a URL and extracts readable text'), identifies the resource (URL content), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying content types (HTML/PDF) and extraction focus, unlike search_web or summarize_url which imply different operations.

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 implies usage for fetching and extracting text from URLs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_web (likely for broader web searches) or summarize_url (likely for summarization). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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