html_html_meta

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool extracts without side effects and returns a structured output. Lacks details on error handling (e.g., malformed HTML) but is adequate for a simple extraction tool.

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?

Two sentences: first specifies action and output, second adds use cases. No unnecessary words or repetition. Perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 extraction tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps.

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 single 'html' parameter is named descriptively. The description adds context by linking it to extraction of title and meta tags, compensating for the lack of parameter description in the schema (0% coverage).

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 it extracts <title> and <meta> tags from HTML, specifies the return format as a dictionary with title and meta list, and differentiates from sibling HTML extraction tools like html_html_headings and html_html_links.

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?

Provides usage context by mentioning usefulness for Open Graph tags, descriptions, and keywords, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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