html_html_tables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It fully describes the return structure (list of tables, rows, cells), which is transparent about what the agent will receive. No side effects mentioned; but for a read-only extraction tool, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that convey purpose, return format, and usage. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and presence of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It is nearly complete, though could mention extraction behavior (e.g., <table> tags only or nested tables).

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 has one 'html' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description only implies it is the HTML source via context ('Extract from web pages'), but does not explain expected format, encoding, or constraints beyond the schema.

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 all HTML tables and describes the return format. It is specific about the resource (HTML tables) but does not distinguish from sibling tools like html_html_links or html_html_text.

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 includes a brief usage suggestion: 'Use to extract structured tabular data from web pages.' However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternative tools.

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