scrape_web

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose key behavior: it fetches external web content, returns markdown, uses Jina Reader, and requires http/https URLs. However, it does not mention errors, access limitations, size limits, or that this is a read-only network operation.

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 short and includes clear Args/Returns sections, but it is somewhat redundant: 'Scrape the content of a web page using Jina Reader' and 'fetches the content of any web page... using the Jina Reader service' overlap. It could be tightened without losing information.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential contract: input URL must be http/https, output is the page content as markdown. It lacks failure-mode detail, but the tool is low-complexity and the return format is explicitly stated.

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 schema provides zero description coverage, but the tool description compensates well for the single parameter: it identifies 'url' as the page to scrape and imposes the http/https constraint. This gives an agent meaningful information beyond the bare schema definition.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: scrape the content of a web page using Jina Reader, returning markdown. It does not explicitly compare against siblings such as search_docs, but the action and resource are clear enough to distinguish it.

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 the tool should be used when raw web page content is needed, and states it can handle 'any web page'. It gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or what alternatives (e.g., search_docs, count_word_occurrences) are better suited for other tasks.

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