Scrape URL as Markdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it uses Mozilla Readability to strip boilerplate, converts to Markdown optimized for LLMs, executes JavaScript with headless Chrome, and handles dynamic/SPA pages. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential destructive effects, but covers core functionality thoroughly.

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, with every sentence earning its place: first sentence states core purpose, second explains processing details, third provides usage context, and fourth covers technical capabilities. No wasted words.

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 does well by explaining the tool's behavior, output format (Markdown), and technical approach. It could improve by mentioning potential limitations (e.g., timeouts, blocked sites) or response structure, but it's largely complete for a scraping tool.

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 (url, wait_for, delay). The description doesn't add specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases for parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('fetch', 'return') and resources ('web page', 'main readable content as clean Markdown'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for when you already know the URL, unlike web_search which presumably searches for URLs.

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 this tool ('when you already know the URL and need to read the full content') and when not to use it (implied: use web_search when you don't know the URL). It names an alternative ('web_search'), providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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