fetch_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that content is 'unmodified' and returned 'as HTML', which is helpful, but lacks critical details like error handling, timeout behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it follows redirects. For a fetch operation with potential network issues, this is a significant 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 description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('fetch a website') and specifies the output ('unmodified contents as HTML'). Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (network operation with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address error cases, performance characteristics, or what happens with malformed HTML. For a fetch tool that could encounter various real-world issues, more context is needed.

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 thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'max_length' interacts with HTML structure or whether 'headers' can override defaults). 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 a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('website'), and indicates the output format ('HTML'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'unmodified contents as HTML' rather than JSON, markdown, or text formats. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the output format.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch_json, fetch_markdown, or fetch_txt. It doesn't mention scenarios where HTML output is preferred over other formats, nor does it discuss any prerequisites or constraints for usage.

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