get_page

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond these: live network access, markdown output, independence from crawl output, and intentional disregard for site-configured content_selector/scope. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and output, then a compact contrast that disambiguates from crawl-based tools. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what, when, and one key quirk, leaving no ambiguity about invocation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters, including the content_selector default of 'body'. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level detail; its mention of content_selector refers to site configuration rather than the argument itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a URL live over the network and return its content as markdown.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does not read stored crawl output, which clearly separates it from read_page and other crawl-related tools.

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?

It provides a clear context: use this for an on-demand, live fetch independent of any crawl, as opposed to reading stored crawl output. It doesn't name an explicit alternative such as read_page, but the contrast with crawl-based reads gives an agent enough guidance to choose correctly.

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