Auth Fetch

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool opens a browser window, requires user interaction (login, click capture), returns cleaned HTML with noise stripped and media preserved, and directs to download_media for image/file downloads. All behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 paragraph but covers all key points without redundancy. Each sentence contributes meaning. Could be slightly more structured but remains efficient.

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 the complexity of an auth-fetching tool, the description explains the user interaction flow, output format (cleaned HTML), and references a sibling tool (download_media). No output schema exists, but description provides enough for agent to understand usage.

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 coverage is 100%. Description adds context for 'url' (the URL to fetch) and 'wait_for' (optional CSS selector for SPAs). This adds value beyond schema definitions.

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 it fetches web page content using a real browser and returns cleaned HTML. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is for pages requiring login or returning empty HTML, and lists examples like Notion, Google Docs, Jira, Confluence, Linear, Slack, or any SaaS/private page.

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?

Explicitly states 'MUST be used instead of Fetch/web_fetch when the page requires login or returns empty/minimal HTML' and 'Do NOT suggest copy-paste or PDF export — use this tool first.' It outlines a workflow but does not explicitly exclude use cases for simple public pages where a simpler tool suffices.

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