scrape_to_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral transparency. It does not mention that the tool performs network requests, potential authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. For a scraping tool, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but for a tool with 22 parameters it is under-specified. It is not bloated, but it lacks structure and fails to add value beyond the basic purpose.

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?

The tool has high complexity (22 params, no output schema), and the description is incomplete. It states the output format (markdown) but gives no information about return values, error behavior, parameter interactions, or typical use cases. The required URL parameter is not mentioned in the description.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of all 22 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not contradict or omit anything the schema already covers.

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 states the core action ('Scrape and convert to markdown format') with a clear subject (URL via required parameter). It differentiates from the sibling 'scrape' by specifying markdown output, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'scrape' or 'scrape_with_js'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about ideal use cases, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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