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

The description explicitly states that unsupported fields return null and that an unmatchable schema results in an explicit error. It also notes that values are never invented or approximated, giving clear expectations about tool behavior.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes relevant behavioral details without unnecessary fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 covers the core functionality, input methods, output format, and error behavior for unmatched schemas. It omits details like schema format specification or potential edge cases, but for a tool of this complexity it is sufficiently complete.

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 description clarifies that url and text are alternative input sources and that schema is user-provided for output structure. While it does not detail each parameter individually, the key semantic distinction between url and text is conveyed, compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool extracts structured data from a URL or raw text into strict JSON. It specifies the resource and output format, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions it is part of a content kit and suggests trying the sample endpoint, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this over alternatives. The reference to /capabilities provides indirect guidance, but explicit conditions for use are absent.

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