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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that data is extracted from a URL but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, how input URLs are processed, what happens on failure, or what the output format will be.

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 concise sentence that lists concrete extracted attributes. The '[Custom Enterprise Schema]' prefix is boilerplate and adds little value, but overall there is no meaningful waste.

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 single-URL extraction tool, the description is minimally adequate and names the key outputs. However, it fails to describe the return structure, any URL constraints, or why this tool should be chosen over refinery_custom_municipal_zoning_compliance.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, with 'Target URL to ingest and distill' already defining the 'url' property. The description adds field-level output context but no additional parameter-level meaning; baseline 3 applies since the schema already does the work.

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 uses a clear verb ('Extracts') and names specific resources: property zoning categories, building square footage, permit approval status, and construction costs. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling tool refinery_custom_municipal_zoning_compliance, which likely overlaps in purpose.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preferred scenarios. The presence of a similarly named zoning-compliance sibling makes this gap more significant.

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