web_fetch

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions fetching and optional extraction, but says nothing about caching (despite bypass_cache parameter), content truncation (max_chars), output format (output_format), or error behavior. The term 'return its content' is vague and omits behavioral details that would help an agent understand side effects or limits.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a useful qualifier. No wasted words; appropriate length for the content provided.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to cover output format, caching, truncation, or any operational constraints. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool correctly without additional undocumented knowledge.

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%, and the description fails to explain any parameters beyond the vague reference to extraction. It does not clarify what url, max_chars, bypass_cache, or output_format do, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and defaults, which are insufficient for correct usage.

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?

Clearly states a specific action (fetch a URL), the resource (URL), and the outcome (return its content) with an optional behavior (extracting the main article). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like web_search (search) and web_crawl (multiple pages).

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 on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like web_crawl or web_extract. The 'optionally extracting the main article' hint is only about a parameter, not about selecting this tool over others. Lacks exclusions or recommended contexts.

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