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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses important operational behavior: charging is per page fetched across all sites, failed fetches are free, and URLs are not logged. It also explains what pages are fetched and that the response includes warnings and a disclaimer, which materially helps an agent understand cost and privacy implications.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and example, but it is overly long and enumerates many response fields despite an output schema being present. Billing information is repeated in two separate places, which adds redundancy without new meaning.

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 bulk extraction tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: cost model, failed-fetch behavior, privacy, example inputs, and high-level result contents. It is only incomplete around sibling-tool selection guidance and the unexplained include_social parameter.

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 coverage is 75%, with urls, region, and max_pages already documented in the schema; the description usefully reinforces these with an example and clarifies max_pages as homepage plus contact pages per site. However, include_social has an empty schema description and is not explained in the description, leaving one parameter opaque.

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 that this tool extracts contacts from multiple websites in one call, with homepage and contact-page coverage. It is specific enough to distinguish a bulk lead-list operation, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the single-site sibling tool extract_contacts.

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?

Usage is implied by the lead-list framing and the example covering multiple URLs, max_pages, and region. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus extract_contacts, extract_from_html, or find_social_profiles, nor does it state exclusions.

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