get_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It thoroughly explains what each output_format returns, how selector scopes the result, and the include_shadow_dom default behavior. It does not describe failure modes or edge cases like empty results, but for a read-only content tool this is a minor omission.

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 lengthy but well-organized into Args, Returns, and Tool selection sections. Each section adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Minor redundancy between the intro use-case sentence and the Tool selection list, but it is not wasteful.

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?

The description is complete for a tool of this complexity: it documents every parameter, defines all output formats, explains return types, and provides routing guidance to five sibling tools. The presence of an output schema additionally covers structured return details, so nothing an agent needs to invoke correctly is missing.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters with concrete semantics: selector scoping per output_format, the exact meaning of each enum value, and include_shadow_dom's effect and default. This goes far beyond the schema's bare property names and defaults.

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 opening sentence states a specific action and resource: 'Read visible text, HTML, or discovered URLs from the current page.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by listing specific alternatives in Tool selection, such as get_page_info for metadata, find_elements for structured element info, and check_condition for presence/visibility.

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 Tool selection section explicitly maps user needs to the correct tool (e.g., 'Need URL, title, origin, or User-Agent -> use get_page_info') and to the correct output_format. The introductory sentence also sets the general condition: use when you need actual page content or URL information rather than page metadata.

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