fetchWebContent

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the public URL scope and Markdown/web page support. It does not disclose extraction behavior, the effect of readability/raw, or whether output is transformed. This is adequate given annotations, but the additional behavioral context is thin.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a tool whose annotations cover safety. It is concise without losing necessary information.

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?

This is a six-parameter tool with no output schema and several closely related sibling tools. The one-sentence description omits paging via startIndex, the purpose of readability/raw, the response format, and when to choose specialized fetchers. Annotations only cover safety, not operational completeness, so the definition leaves significant gaps.

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 only 33% (raw and startIndex have descriptions). The description only adds meaning to the url parameter by specifying 'public HTTP(S)'. It does not compensate for the undocumented maxChars, readability, includeLinks, or the overall behavior of raw. The tool description fails to help an agent understand five of the six 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 verb ('Fetch'), resource ('content from a public HTTP(S) URL'), and supported content types (Markdown files and normal web pages). It is readily distinguishable from specialized siblings such as fetchGithubReadme or fetchCsdnArticle, but it does not explicitly name them, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the specialized fetch tools (fetchCsdnArticle, fetchGithubReadme, fetchJuejinArticle) or alternatives like search/queryDocs. There are no conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria. The mention of supported formats only implies scope, not when to prefer this tool.

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