get_webpage_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'using jina reader' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or output format (markdown as implied by name). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place, providing essential information without 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., markdown content, errors), behavioral aspects, or parameter details. For a tool fetching webpage content, more context on output and constraints 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 0%, with one parameter 'url' undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name; it doesn't specify URL format constraints (e.g., must be valid HTTP/HTTPS), examples, or how jina reader processes it. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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 action ('Fetch') and resource ('content of a url'), specifying the method ('using jina reader'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on general webpages rather than PDFs, Google Docs, tweets, or YouTube transcripts. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage for fetching webpage content via jina reader, suggesting it's for general URLs. No explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings (e.g., for PDFs use get_pdf) or exclusions (e.g., not for non-webpage resources). The context is clear but lacks direct alternatives or prerequisites.

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